Re: [PATCH v3 09/16] platform/x86: x86-android-tablets: Add include defining struct dmi_system_id

[Ilpo Järvinen]

On Mon, 29 Jun 2026, Uwe Kleine-König (The Capable Hub) wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2026 at 02:38:35PM +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> > On Sun, 28 Jun 2026, Uwe Kleine-König (The Capable Hub) wrote:
> > 
> > > Currently <linux/i2c.h> includes <linux/mod_devicetable.h> transitively
> > > which ensures that struct dmi_system_id is defined in
> > > drivers/platform/x86/x86-android-tablets/x86-android-tablets.h. However
> > > this include in <linux/i2c.h> will be replaced by one for i2c_device_id
> > > only. To ensure that dmi_system_id is available add the include for that
> > > explicitly.
> > > 
> > > Acked-by: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König (The Capable Hub) <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/platform/x86/x86-android-tablets/x86-android-tablets.h | 1 +
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/x86-android-tablets/x86-android-tablets.h b/drivers/platform/x86/x86-android-tablets/x86-android-tablets.h
> > > index 2498390958ad..c756961ae5fd 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/platform/x86/x86-android-tablets/x86-android-tablets.h
> > > +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/x86-android-tablets/x86-android-tablets.h
> > > @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@
> > >  #include <linux/gpio/consumer.h>
> > >  #include <linux/i2c.h>
> > >  #include <linux/irqdomain_defs.h>
> > > +#include <linux/device-id/dmi.h>
> > >  #include <linux/spi/spi.h>
> > >  
> > >  struct gpio_desc;
> > 
> > Indirect include patchs are never a good idea as it always makes header 
> > reorganizations minefield. So for this change,
> > 
> > Acked-by: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > 
> > When it comes to the series, I certainly like the direction it goes very 
> > much (never have been fan of mod_devicetable.h) but I'd have preferred 
> > stepwise approach over trying to introduce it to some mid-rc.
> 
> The hurdle here is that at least the header part isn't easily
> automateable.

Patch 1?

> (Well it is, but the script that I have now to check all
> .c files already takes longer than an hour to run. I guess it's not as
> optimal as it could, but still.) And so getting this ready for inclusion
> in next and keeping it up to date until the merge window opens is a
> tough job.
> 
> The further downside is that each modification to one of the highly used
> headers is expensive (in rebuild time) when these are merged one after
> another (or when bisecting). So getting these changes in in one batch is
> beneficial.
> 
> So while I agree with your preference, I don't think it's feasible.

While I understand keeping it up-to-date must be a pain, I'm not entirely 
convinced by the rebuild time argument as it has been the status quo so 
far too for anything touching mod_devicetable.h.

If one commit would move all linux/device-id/* AND ADD them all into 
mod_devicetable.h as includes, that's just one rebuild more (and one 
rebuild will occur anyway whichever way you architect this).

Only if includes would be then removed one-by-one from mod_devicetable.h 
(e.g. per subsystem basis), I can see it causing n rebuilds (+conflicts), 
but they could be removed in bulk as well.

What you can achieve is preventing those "normal" mod_devicetable.h 
changes enforcing rebuilds right after this has been applied, but that is 
just the rebuilds as status quo would have without this series and no 
more.


-- 
 i.