Re: [PATCH 02/15] leds: leds-gpio-register: Supply description for param 'id'

Lee Jones
2021-06-01T09:05:31Z

On Fri, 28 May 2021, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:

> Hey Lee,
>
> On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 10:55:31AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Fri, 28 May 2021, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 10:06:16AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/leds/leds-gpio-register.c b/drivers/leds/leds-gpio-register.c
> > > > index b9187e71e0cf2..de3f12c2b80d7 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/leds/leds-gpio-register.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/leds/leds-gpio-register.c
> > > > @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@
> > > > /**
> > > > * gpio_led_register_device - register a gpio-led device
> > > > * @pdata: the platform data used for the new device
> > > > + * @id: platform ID
> > > > *
> > >
> > > Given that id is the first parameter and pdata the second I suggest to
> > > swap the order here and describe id first.
> >
> > That's super picky.
> >
> > I can do it as a follow-up patch if you *really* care about it.
>
> I'd say introducing the one-line description for id now in the "wrong"
> location and then reordering as a followup is ridiculus. But having said
> that: I don't care at all.

It's only "wrong" according to you.

I see these presented in a different order to their counterparts all
the time. I do however appreciate that it does make more sense and
is easier on the eye, which is why I am more than happy to rectify.

With regards to the follow-up scenario, it makes far less sense for an
already merged patch in a history tree to be reverted, or for history
to be unnecessarily re-written for something as trivial as this.

--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog