On 02-05-19, 08:31, Greg KH wrote:
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@suse.de Signed-off-by: Pierre-Louis Bossart pierre-louis.bossart@linux.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?
Well at least Pierre knows that very well :) He is designate Reviewer of this subsystem.
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.
Sure I do agree that this assumes internal knowledge but the contributor knows the subsystem extremely well and he knows the different parts. For drive by contributor I agree things would be not that picky :)
Even considering the patch series, some split was even file based and in this case not done. All I ask is for consistency in the series proposed.
I think you have swung too far to the "too picky" side, you might want to dial it back.
Sure given that this is code cleanup I will split them up and push. Shouldn't take much of my time.
Thanks for the advise.