[PATCH 1/4] i2c-nomadik: documentation fixes

[PATCH 1/4] i2c-nomadik: documentation fixes

[Linus Walleij]

This fixes some kerneldoc and assorted documenatation in the
Nomadik I2C driver without semantic impact.

Acked-by: Srinidhi Kasagar <srinidhi.kasagar-0IS4wlFg1OjSUeElwK9/Pw@public.gmane.org>
Signed-off-by: Sundar R Iyer <sundar.iyer-0IS4wlFg1OjSUeElwK9/Pw@public.gmane.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij-0IS4wlFg1OjSUeElwK9/Pw@public.gmane.org>
---
 drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-nomadik.c |   10 +++++-----
 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-nomadik.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-nomadik.c
index 73de8ad..a73c057 100644
--- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-nomadik.c
+++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-nomadik.c
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 /*
- * Copyright (C) 2009 ST-Ericsson
+ * Copyright (C) 2009 ST-Ericsson SA
  * Copyright (C) 2009 STMicroelectronics
  *
  * I2C master mode controller driver, used in Nomadik 8815
@@ -431,7 +431,6 @@ static int read_i2c(struct nmk_i2c_dev *dev)
 		(void) init_hw(dev);
 		status = -ETIMEDOUT;
 	}
-
 	return status;
 }
 
@@ -502,9 +501,9 @@ static int write_i2c(struct nmk_i2c_dev *dev)
 
 /**
  * nmk_i2c_xfer() - I2C transfer function used by kernel framework
- * @i2c_adap 	- Adapter pointer to the controller
- * @msgs[] - Pointer to data to be written.
- * @num_msgs - Number of messages to be executed
+ * @i2c_adap: Adapter pointer to the controller
+ * @msgs: Pointer to data to be written.
+ * @num_msgs: Number of messages to be executed
  *
  * This is the function called by the generic kernel i2c_transfer()
  * or i2c_smbus...() API calls. Note that this code is protected by the
@@ -605,6 +604,7 @@ static int nmk_i2c_xfer(struct i2c_adapter *i2c_adap,
 /**
  * disable_interrupts() - disable the interrupts
  * @dev: private data of controller
+ * @irq: interrupt number
  */
 static int disable_interrupts(struct nmk_i2c_dev *dev, u32 irq)
 {
-- 
1.6.3.3

Re: [PATCH 1/4] i2c-nomadik: documentation fixes

[Ben Dooks]

On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 09:03:40AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> This fixes some kerneldoc and assorted documenatation in the
> Nomadik I2C driver without semantic impact.
> 
> Acked-by: Srinidhi Kasagar <srinidhi.kasagar-0IS4wlFg1OjSUeElwK9/Pw@public.gmane.org>
> Signed-off-by: Sundar R Iyer <sundar.iyer-0IS4wlFg1OjSUeElwK9/Pw@public.gmane.org>
> Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij-0IS4wlFg1OjSUeElwK9/Pw@public.gmane.org>

You've correctly got yourself in the signed-off-by line, but why is there
a reference to 'Sundar R Iye' in there? If this is the original patch
authour then you need to have a From: line at the top as it looks like
you (Linus Walleij) are re-sending the patch.

I'll apply these once this is sorted out.

-- 
Ben

Re: [PATCH 1/4] i2c-nomadik: documentation fixes

[Linus Walleij]

2010/9/27 Ben Dooks <ben-i2c-elnMNo+KYs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org>:

> On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 09:03:40AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> This fixes some kerneldoc and assorted documenatation in the
>> Nomadik I2C driver without semantic impact.
>>
>> Acked-by: Srinidhi Kasagar <srinidhi.kasagar-0IS4wlFg1OjSUeElwK9/Pw@public.gmane.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Sundar R Iyer <sundar.iyer-0IS4wlFg1OjSUeElwK9/Pw@public.gmane.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij-0IS4wlFg1OjSUeElwK9/Pw@public.gmane.org>
>
> You've correctly got yourself in the signed-off-by line, but why is there
> a reference to 'Sundar R Iye' in there? If this is the original patch
> authour then you need to have a From: line at the top as it looks like
> you (Linus Walleij) are re-sending the patch.

Actually there are several original authors, we're squashing internal
company history into this patch set (with more on its way). The
changes are not split this way in the original git, they are split this
way because of your request to split the patch set.

Sundar is one author, I'm delivering so we're doing this with a
double-SoB, couldn't think of anything better.

> I'll apply these once this is sorted out.

OK I hope Sundar is happy with this, else he'll tell us.

Yours,
Linus Walleij

RE: [PATCH 1/4] i2c-nomadik: documentation fixes

[Sundar R IYER]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Linus Walleij [mailto:linus.ml.walleij-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org]
>OK I hope Sundar is happy with this, else he'll tell us.

Yeah no issues absolutely; Ben, if you are okay, you may please
go ahead and merge this.

Cheers!

Re: [PATCH 1/4] i2c-nomadik: documentation fixes

[Ben Dooks]

On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 10:59:22AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> 2010/9/27 Ben Dooks <ben-i2c-elnMNo+KYs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org>:
> 
> > On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 09:03:40AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> >> This fixes some kerneldoc and assorted documenatation in the
> >> Nomadik I2C driver without semantic impact.
> >>
> >> Acked-by: Srinidhi Kasagar <srinidhi.kasagar-0IS4wlFg1OjSUeElwK9/Pw@public.gmane.org>
> >> Signed-off-by: Sundar R Iyer <sundar.iyer-0IS4wlFg1OjSUeElwK9/Pw@public.gmane.org>
> >> Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij-0IS4wlFg1OjSUeElwK9/Pw@public.gmane.org>
> >
> > You've correctly got yourself in the signed-off-by line, but why is there
> > a reference to 'Sundar R Iye' in there? If this is the original patch
> > authour then you need to have a From: line at the top as it looks like
> > you (Linus Walleij) are re-sending the patch.
>
> Actually there are several original authors, we're squashing internal
> company history into this patch set (with more on its way). The
> changes are not split this way in the original git, they are split this
> way because of your request to split the patch set.

I would much prefer to see less squashing, it makes life difficult for
the upstream. I'll accept your signed-off as a you have made sure that
this is work that is yours to submit.

I do not like having authours removed from patches, it is all too easy
if you go about squashing two different authours work together and
then not being able to re-split them if you have a problem.

It means that if your tree is handling external patches, then you could end
up with the situation where it is difficult or almost impossible to undo
a change which the original sender either did not have the authority to
send, or has something in that should have never been sent (i've seen
several issues where companies have had desperate back-peddling because
someone forgot to remove some $secret from the repository before allowing
it to be uploaded somewhere).

The other issue is that if you start squashing different fixes and updates
together, it makes it difficult to go through examining the effects of a
change. When these are merged upstream it is occasionally useful to be
able to bisect these change in case one fix or change breaks something
for another user.

Basically, if possible, please avoid too much squashing and also avoid
squashing two different authours of patches together.

> Sundar is one author, I'm delivering so we're doing this with a
> double-SoB, couldn't think of anything better.

It would have been helpful to add a 'From:' line as well, git can be
made to re-write the authour of a patch, but you'll have to search for
it. Please find a method for future reference.
 
> > I'll apply these once this is sorted out.
> 
> OK I hope Sundar is happy with this, else he'll tell us.
> 
> Yours,
> Linus Walleij

-- 
Ben

Q:      What's a light-year?
A:      One-third less calories than a regular year.

Re: [PATCH 1/4] i2c-nomadik: documentation fixes

[Linus Walleij]

2010/9/28 Ben Dooks <ben-i2c-elnMNo+KYs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org>:

> It means that if your tree is handling external patches, then you could end
> up with the situation where it is difficult or almost impossible to undo
> a change which the original sender either did not have the authority to
> send, or has something in that should have never been sent (i've seen
> several issues where companies have had desperate back-peddling because
> someone forgot to remove some $secret from the repository before allowing
> it to be uploaded somewhere).

We actually have that part under control, believe it or not :-)

> It would have been helpful to add a 'From:' line as well, git can be
> made to re-write the authour of a patch, but you'll have to search for
> it. Please find a method for future reference.

I'm on it... thanks Ben.

Yours,
Linus Walleij

Re: [PATCH 1/4] i2c-nomadik: documentation fixes

[Ben Dooks]

On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 10:55:37AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> 2010/9/28 Ben Dooks <ben-i2c-elnMNo+KYs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org>:
> 
> > It means that if your tree is handling external patches, then you could end
> > up with the situation where it is difficult or almost impossible to undo
> > a change which the original sender either did not have the authority to
> > send, or has something in that should have never been sent (i've seen
> > several issues where companies have had desperate back-peddling because
> > someone forgot to remove some $secret from the repository before allowing
> > it to be uploaded somewhere).
> 
> We actually have that part under control, believe it or not :-)

Ok, but it is probably useful for other people out there.
 
> > It would have been helpful to add a 'From:' line as well, git can be
> > made to re-write the authour of a patch, but you'll have to search for
> > it. Please find a method for future reference.
> 
> I'm on it... thanks Ben.

My personal view is to always keep attributions. Even if they are then
posted through someone else, or require a corporate stamp on them before
they get out of the building.

Let me know what you'd like to do, and I'll sort out something for -next.

-- 
Ben

Q:      What's a light-year?
A:      One-third less calories than a regular year.

Re: [PATCH 1/4] i2c-nomadik: documentation fixes

[Linus Walleij]

2010/9/29 Ben Dooks <ben-i2c-elnMNo+KYs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org>:

> My personal view is to always keep attributions. Even if they are then
> posted through someone else, or require a corporate stamp on them before
> they get out of the building.

I try to do this, but there are people who do not *want* to be attributed
actually, and I need their permission to do so. (The reverse problem.)
I have requested their consent but got no answer. So I am not allowed
to post their authorship.

Maybe it's a bit of strange desire for us kernel types but well...
I have to respect their privacy.

> Let me know what you'd like to do, and I'll sort out something for -next.

I really like the dual sign-off with Sundar becase something like
90% of these patch contents are his code, and I need to sign off
for being in the delivery path. (I'm just a patch submission clerk
when it comes to nomadik-i2c) I can repost the set with Sundar
on the From: if you like.

Yours,
Linus Walleij