Re: [PATCH v4 2/7] nvmem: qcom-spmi-sdam: Migrate to devm_spmi_subdevice_alloc_and_add()

[AngeloGioacchino Del Regno]

Il 16/09/25 18:20, Andy Shevchenko ha scritto:
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 6:11 PM Uwe Kleine-König
> <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 04:35:35PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 03:24:56PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 10:44:40AM +0200, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > > > > +MODULE_IMPORT_NS("SPMI");
> > > >
> > > > If it's exactly the files that #include <linux/spmi.h> should have that
> > > > namespace import, you can put the MODULE_IMPORT_NS into that header.
> > >
> > > Which makes anyone to import namespace even if they just want to use some types
> > > out of the header.
> >
> > Notice that I carefully formulated my suggestion to cope for this case.
>
> And I carefully answered. Your proposal won't prevent _other_ files to
> use the same header in the future without needing a namespace to be
> imported.
>
> > > This is not good solution generally speaking. Also this will
> > > diminish one of the purposes of _NS variants of MODULE*/EXPORT*, i.e. make it
> > > invisible that some of the code may become an abuser of the API just by someone
> > > include the header (for a reason or by a mistake).
> >
> > Yeah, opinions differ. In my eyes it's quite elegant.
>
> It's not a pure opinion, it has a technical background that I
> explained. The explicit usage of MODULE_IMPORT_NS() is better than
> some header somewhere that might even be included by another and be
> proxied to the code that doesn't need / want to have this namespace to
> be present. Puting MODULE_IMPORT_NS() into a _header_ is a minefield
> for the future.

Uwe, thanks for your review - much appreciated.

Even though I get your point... Sorry, but here I do agree with Andy, and I think
he explained some of the reasons pretty well.

Cheers,
Angelo