[PATCH] net: qualcomm: ppe: Remove redundant include of dev_printk.h

Jinseok Kim posted 1 patch 3 weeks, 5 days ago
drivers/net/ethernet/qualcomm/ppe/ppe_debugfs.c | 1 -
1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
[PATCH] net: qualcomm: ppe: Remove redundant include of dev_printk.h
Posted by Jinseok Kim 3 weeks, 5 days ago
The header <linux/device.h> already includes <linux/dev_printk.h>.
Therefore, explicitly including <linux/dev_printk.h> is unnecessary.

This patch removes the redundant include. No functional changes.

Signed-off-by: Jinseok Kim <always.starving0@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/net/ethernet/qualcomm/ppe/ppe_debugfs.c | 1 -
 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/qualcomm/ppe/ppe_debugfs.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/qualcomm/ppe/ppe_debugfs.c
index fd959a76ff43..df9f0cdad626 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/qualcomm/ppe/ppe_debugfs.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/qualcomm/ppe/ppe_debugfs.c
@@ -7,7 +7,6 @@

 #include <linux/bitfield.h>
 #include <linux/debugfs.h>
-#include <linux/dev_printk.h>
 #include <linux/device.h>
 #include <linux/regmap.h>
 #include <linux/seq_file.h>
--
2.43.0
Re: [PATCH] net: qualcomm: ppe: Remove redundant include of dev_printk.h
Posted by Jakub Kicinski 3 weeks, 3 days ago
On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 20:20:38 -0800 Jinseok Kim wrote:
> The header <linux/device.h> already includes <linux/dev_printk.h>.
> Therefore, explicitly including <linux/dev_printk.h> is unnecessary.
> 
> This patch removes the redundant include. No functional changes.

Unless there's some effort to remove the dev_printk.h header let's
leave it as is. Depending on header dependencies is not generally
recommended.
-- 
pw-bot: cr
Re: [PATCH] net: qualcomm: ppe: Remove redundant include of dev_printk.h
Posted by Jinseok Kim 3 weeks, 2 days ago
Thanks for the review!

I suggested removing the direct #include <linux/dev_printk.h> because
this is the only file under net/ethernet/qualcomm/ that explicitly includes it.
All other files use dev_err() etc. just fine via <linux/device.h>.

But you're right — relying on indirect includes isn't ideal...
I'll leave it as-is for now.