Re: [PATCH v3 5/7] mfd: cros_ec: Sync to the latest cros_ec_commands.h from EC sources

[Paul Bolle <pebolle@tiscali.nl>]

On Tue, 2014-06-17 at 10:20 -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 06/17/2014 02:53 AM, Paul Bolle wrote:
> > So, in summary, while we're apparently only discussing a single comment,
> > I would appreciate it if it could be reworded, preferably by dropping
> > that the CONFIG_ prefix. But other people might care very little, as
> > they don't share this particular pet peeve.
> 
> Can't your tool maintain a whitelist or ignore list?

Sure it can. But I do think I should try to fix the (in my view, at
least) problems I find before adding stuff to a whitelist or (whatever).

> There are many
> cases where the kernel can pull in headers/data from other projects
> (Firmware interfaces to an arbitrarily large set of HW, Device trees,
> IO/network protocools, perhaps more). It feels quite unreasonable for
> the kernel to decide that it exclusively owns the CONFIG_* namespace
> even in comments, and that every other project it interacts with must
> not use that namespace.

As I said, this is more my peeve. Then again, referring to a macro from
some other project is likely to confuse people.


Paul Bolle