Re: [PATCH v4 02/22] soundwire: fix SPDX license for header files

Vinod Koul
2019-05-02T06:44:54Z

On 02-05-19, 08:31, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, May 02, 2019 at 10:46:49AM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
> > On 01-05-19, 10:57, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
> > > No C++ comments in .h files
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>
> > > Signed-off-by: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/soundwire/bus.h | 4 ++--
> > > drivers/soundwire/cadence_master.h | 4 ++--
> > > drivers/soundwire/intel.h | 4 ++--
> >
> > As I said previously this touches subsystem header as well as driver
> > headers which is not ideal.
>
> What? Who knows that? Who cares?

Well at least Pierre knows that very well :) He is designate Reviewer of
this subsystem.

> This is doing "one logical thing" to all of the needed files. Your
> split of "this is a driver" vs. "this is a subsystem" split is _VERY_
> arbritary.
>
> That's just too picky and assumes a subsystem-internal-knowledge much
> deeper than anyone submitting a normal cleanup patch would ever know.

Sure I do agree that this assumes internal knowledge but the contributor
knows the subsystem extremely well and he knows the different parts. For
drive by contributor I agree things would be not that picky :)

Even considering the patch series, some split was even file based and in
this case not done. All I ask is for consistency in the series proposed.

> I think you have swung too far to the "too picky" side, you might want
> to dial it back.

Sure given that this is code cleanup I will split them up and push.
Shouldn't take much of my time.

Thanks for the advise.
--
~Vinod