From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jean Delvare Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] i2c-i801: Handle multiple instances instead of keeping global state Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 10:19:53 +0100 Message-ID: <20101031101953.45b3dabf@endymion.delvare> References: <20101030182458.0849f295@endymion.delvare> <1288481663.4570.19.camel@macbook.infradead.org> <20101030233930.GQ21564@trinity.fluff.org> <1288482478.4570.23.camel@macbook.infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1288482478.4570.23.camel-uXGAPMMVk8bAQYKIod7YupZV94DADvEd@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-i2c-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: David Woodhouse Cc: Ben Dooks , linux-i2c-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 19:47:58 -0400, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Sun, 2010-10-31 at 00:39 +0100, Ben Dooks wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 07:34:23PM -0400, David Woodhouse wrote: > > > On Sat, 2010-10-30 at 18:24 +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > > > > An explanation why this change is needed would be nice. > > > > > > Um, does it really need explaining? It's really poor form to keep driver > > > state in global variables rather than per-instance, even if you *don't* > > > actually have more than one device. This is actually a good second half for an explanation paragraph. > > I always like to fill it in, it makes it easier for lazy folks who can't > > be bothered to read the patch itself. > > The explanation fits in one line: > "Handle multiple instances instead of keeping global state" No, this isn't en explanation. This is a statement of _what_ your patch does. This is needed but not sufficient. What is additionally requested from you is an explanation _why_ it does it. > I could try adding a paragraph explaining further that this patch will > make the driver handle multiple instances of the device, by keeping its > state per-device instead of in global variables. But that seems > somewhat... redundant. You want to explain that the assumption of the original driver author that there can be only one supported device with one SMBus interface on a given system no longer holds true for new devices to be released soon. Thanks, -- Jean Delvare