[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190502063139.GA14347@kroah.com>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2019 08:31:39 +0200
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>
Cc: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>,
alsa-devel@...a-project.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
tiwai@...e.de, broonie@...nel.org, liam.r.girdwood@...ux.intel.com,
jank@...ence.com, joe@...ches.com, srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org,
Sanyog Kale <sanyog.r.kale@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 02/22] soundwire: fix SPDX license for header files
On Thu, May 02, 2019 at 10:46:49AM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
> On 01-05-19, 10:57, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
> > No C++ comments in .h files
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
> > Signed-off-by: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/soundwire/bus.h | 4 ++--
> > drivers/soundwire/cadence_master.h | 4 ++--
> > drivers/soundwire/intel.h | 4 ++--
>
> As I said previously this touches subsystem header as well as driver
> headers which is not ideal.
What? Who knows that? Who cares?
This is doing "one logical thing" to all of the needed files. Your
split of "this is a driver" vs. "this is a subsystem" split is _VERY_
arbritary.
That's just too picky and assumes a subsystem-internal-knowledge much
deeper than anyone submitting a normal cleanup patch would ever know.
I think you have swung too far to the "too picky" side, you might want
to dial it back.
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists