Re: [PATCH 26/26] docs: i2c: rename sections so the overall picture is clearer

Luca Ceresoli
2020-01-16T10:38:23Z

Hi Jean, Peter,

thanks both for your reviews.

On 16/01/20 10:49, Jean Delvare wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Jan 2020 08:49:05 +0100, Luca Ceresoli wrote:
>> Some of the section names are not very clear. Reading those names in the
>> index.rst page does not help much in grasping what the content is supposed
>> to be.
>>
>> Rename those sections to clarify their content, especially when reading
>> the index page.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Luca Ceresoli <luca@lucaceresoli.net>
>> Acked-by: Peter Rosin <peda@axentia.se>
>> ---
>>
>> Note: here checkpatch complains:
>>
>> WARNING: Missing or malformed SPDX-License-Identifier tag in line 1
>>
>> Thas's because those files have no license line. I would gladly add a
>> proper license line, but what it the correct license here? Should I ask the
>> authors? GPLv2-only as the kernel default?
>>
>> I'd appreciate a guidance here, thanks in advance.
>
> I don't think we need a license for such documentation files, so I
> would just ignore checkpatch.

That's OK for me.

>> diff --git a/Documentation/i2c/summary.rst b/Documentation/i2c/summary.rst
>> index fc69d9567d9d..ae3bbb9fd8f1 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/i2c/summary.rst
>> +++ b/Documentation/i2c/summary.rst
>> @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
>> -=============
>> -I2C and SMBus
>> -=============
>> +==============================
>> +Introductions to I2C and SMBus
>> +==============================
>
> I would use "Introduction", singular.

Me too! Fix queued for v2.

Peter, I assume I can keep your Acked-by in v2 with this small change.

--
Luca