On Thursday 12 March 2015 07:11:48 Takashi Iwai wrote:
At Wed, 11 Mar 2015 10:46:29 +0100,
Arnd Bergmann wrote:
quoted
On Wednesday 11 March 2015 07:11:18 Takashi Iwai wrote:
quoted
At Wed, 11 Mar 2015 03:22:04 +0200,
Are there any other headers like that? If this is the only one, leave
it as is. The only program that reads this are some alsa-tools ones
and they have already own DECLARE_BITMAP() definition. Adding the
extra definition here will even break the compilation out of sudden.
I think it's a worthy goal to have the header files be compilable
standalone,
In general yes, but this case is very minor issue:
- the file in question is for a hardware device-specific data
definition,
- there are only two programs read this file, both can be built
properly,
- and the device and the programs are very old, modifying such need
extra care.
Right, we should only do it if the goal is to have all uapi headers
includable standalone. For a particular header file there is very
little benefit as you say, but it would be useful if we can automatically
test for regressions with new or modified headers.
Arnd