From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: York Sun Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2014 15:25:03 -0700 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 2/3] image: move all function comments to header file In-Reply-To: <53EE8661.6080407@wwwdotorg.org> References: <1408136128-16240-1-git-send-email-pengw@nvidia.com> <1408136128-16240-2-git-send-email-pengw@nvidia.com> <53EE834B.3060608@myspectrum.nl> <53EE855C.5040204@freescale.com> <53EE8661.6080407@wwwdotorg.org> Message-ID: <53EE88BF.4050308@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 03:14 PM, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 08/15/2014 04:11 PM, Bryan Wu wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 3:10 PM, York Sun wrote: >>> 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. >>> >> >> Then we need another patch to move those comments from header file to C file. > > Well, I wouldn't do anything just yet. Simon and York need to sort out > an agreement first, so we don't just keep writing patches that move > stuff back and forth. > I don't have strong opinion for this case. I would prefer to have the comments near the implementation. I understand current code may have mixed style here and there. Unless it is a clean up effort, I wouldn't add such patch to a set with function change or bug fix. York