[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200629084659.GI177734@dell>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2020 09:46:59 +0100
From: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To: Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>
Cc: arnd@...db.de, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/10] misc: eeprom: eeprom_93cx6: Repair function arg
descriptions
On Mon, 29 Jun 2020, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>
> > > > @@ -270,7 +270,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(eeprom_93cx6_readb);
> > > > * @eeprom: Pointer to eeprom structure
> > > > * @byte: Index from where we should start reading
> > > > * @data: target pointer where the information will have to be stored
> > > > - * @words: Number of bytes that should be read.
> > > > + * @bytes: Number of bytes that should be read.
> > >
> > > Now we have 'byte' and 'bytes' here as arguments which is confusing. I
> > > think renaming 'words' into 'num_bytes' would be even better.
> >
> > I await your patch with bated breath. :)
>
> ? You are touching it already, why a second patch?
Because it's a different change. One that's orthogonal to this set,
which is designed simply to ensure the documentation matches reality.
The author decided on this (less than ideal [in our humble opinion])
nomenclature from the function's inception back in 2013. Maybe there
are good reasons for it to be this way. Either way, it might require
a dialogue. For this set I'd rather stick to the script.
That said, I genuinely don't mind drafting a patch to fix this. If I
am to do so, it would also be as part as a subsequent effort.
You or me - your call. Happy either way.
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
Powered by blists - more mailing lists