From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965755AbaFQQn5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Jun 2014 12:43:57 -0400 Received: from cpsmtpb-ews03.kpnxchange.com ([213.75.39.6]:57129 "EHLO cpsmtpb-ews03.kpnxchange.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964930AbaFQQny (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Jun 2014 12:43:54 -0400 Message-ID: <1403023431.1984.37.camel@x220> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/7] mfd: cros_ec: Sync to the latest cros_ec_commands.h from EC sources From: Paul Bolle To: Stephen Warren Cc: Doug Anderson , Bill Richardson , Simon Glass , Lee Jones , Stephen Warren , Wolfram Sang , Andrew Bresticker , Dylan Reid , Olof Johansson , Samuel Ortiz , linux-samsung-soc , "linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 18:43:51 +0200 In-Reply-To: <53A06AD4.3000704@wwwdotorg.org> References: <1398879850-9111-1-git-send-email-dianders@chromium.org> <1398879850-9111-6-git-send-email-dianders@chromium.org> <20140520084602.GF24991@lee--X1> <1402483068.3798.82.camel@x220> <1402646902.28881.15.camel@x220> <1402995202.1984.22.camel@x220> <53A06AD4.3000704@wwwdotorg.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.10.4 (3.10.4-2.fc20) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Jun 2014 16:43:51.0930 (UTC) FILETIME=[51F625A0:01CF8A4B] X-RcptDomain: vger.kernel.org Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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