Hi Masahiro, On Thu, 7 May 2020 at 20:31, Masahiro Yamada <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Simon, > > > On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 10:37 AM Simon Glass <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi Masahiro, > > > > On Thu, 7 May 2020 at 07:10, Masahiro Yamada > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > <common.h> pulls in a lot of bloat. <common.h> is unneeded in most of > > > places. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <[email protected]> > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > I'm wary of this. I think that every file should include common.h > > > I disagree. > > "Please include <common.h> at the beginning of every file" > is a fragile rule. > You have no way to check it.
We can add it to checkpatch. > > Our goal is to get rid of the > special treatment of <common.h> As we get closer though I've been thinking about the goal. Do we want people to include config.h specifically if common.h has nothing in it? I feel it is safer to keep common.h, perhaps just with config.h included, until we fully understand what we need. > > > > > and > > the solution is to remove the bloat. I have been plugging away at > > that. There is a pending series that reduces it down further, to 14 > > includes. Please help review! > > > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/list/?series=169491 > > I saw it. > > Humans cannot check it. > If buildman does not raise a flag, it is fine. OK. > > > > > > > The problem is that when someone uses #ifdef CONFIG options the > > config.h has to be included. So your patch is a bit brittle. As soon > > as someone uses CONFIG it may break. > > > For the legacy CONFIG options, yes. > The options in Kconfig are all safe. How come? If config.h is included, the options are not defined. > > Common options were mostly moved to Kconfig. > > We still have lots in scripts/config_whitelist.txt > but most of them are platform-specific craps. Yes...perhaps we should try to have two whitelists, so we know which ones matter more. Regards, Simon
