From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: York Sun Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2014 15:10:36 -0700 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 2/3] image: move all function comments to header file In-Reply-To: References: <1408136128-16240-1-git-send-email-pengw@nvidia.com> <1408136128-16240-2-git-send-email-pengw@nvidia.com> <53EE834B.3060608@myspectrum.nl> Message-ID: <53EE855C.5040204@freescale.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On 08/15/2014 03:07 PM, Bryan Wu wrote: > On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Jeroen Hofstee wrote: >> Hello Bryan, >> >> >> On 15-08-14 22:55, Bryan Wu wrote: >>> >>> Several functions comments are C file with function definition, they >>> should be moved to header file with function declaration. >>> >>> Also update genimg_get_kernel_addr() comments for CONFIG_FIT case. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Bryan Wu >>> >> >> Why _should_ this be done. In general I would not do it >> to keep comment and implementation close to each other. >> (In the hope they actually match). Doxygen and likely the >> kernel doc thing can pick this up. The only reason I can >> think of this being useful is for proprietary code with a public >> api, but this is not applicable for u-boot. >> > > I was asked to do that by Simon and right now in image.c and image.h > it's quite mix. > Some of them are in C code with implementation others are in header > file with declaration. > > I was confused by this in u-boot, although in kernel we put comments > in C code with implementation. > I prefer to see comments near the implementations. York