From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alex G. Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2021 16:24:05 -0600 Subject: [PATCH RFC v2 3/5] lib: Add support for ECDSA image signing In-Reply-To: <20210107172503.GA2292@bill-the-cat> References: <20201230210028.4065824-1-mr.nuke.me@gmail.com> <20201230210028.4065824-4-mr.nuke.me@gmail.com> <826b4d42-c9bb-70cf-9deb-c2b29145e10f@gmail.com> <20210107172503.GA2292@bill-the-cat> Message-ID: <3a76022e-5860-0901-edd4-5e4ea62dabaa@gmail.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On 1/7/21 11:25 AM, Tom Rini wrote: > On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 10:27:50AM -0600, Alex G. wrote: >> On 1/7/21 6:35 AM, Simon Glass wrote: >>> Hi Alexandru, >> >> Hi Simon, >> >> (pun alert!) A lot of your comments have to do with comments. I use comments >> as a tool to add something of value to code. When the code is >> self-documenting, comments don't help much. >> See kernel coding style chapter 8. > > Comments for comments sake are bad. Comments so that we can also have > reasonable generated documentation are good. Function prototypes fall > in to that second category to me, with few exceptions (and that we have > lots of bad examples isn't a good reason). The function names may well > make it obvious what's going on but the comments allow for generated > documentation to include that when explaining the not so obvious parts. > Thanks! > The problem with generated documentation is that it's not very useful. People add comments for the sake of comments to have something generated. Most often you end up with a detailed description of all the details, but almost never the big picture. Nowadays, I don't even waste my time reading generated documentation. I am getting ready to send the new series with the goodies requested by Simon. I don't find the new comments to be useful, and I find some to spread out the code such that it hurts readability. They will be there because you and Simon asked nicely, although I think you're wrong. Alex