Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 3 Mar 2011 12:49:49 +0100 | From | Uwe Kleine-König <> | Subject | Re: [PATCHv1] ARM: imx: Add support for low power suspend on MX51. |
| |
Hello Thomas,
On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 12:02:15PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Thu, 3 Mar 2011, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 12:51:32AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > > +static int __init mx5_pm_init(void) > > > > I'd prefer to have that called by imx51_init_early. > > > > > > And the reason is? > > > > > > 1) your personal preference > > > 2) there is some useful technical reason > > > > > > If #1, then this comment was just waste of electrons > > > If #2, you failed to provide some reasonable explanation > > Actually it's #2, and to quote a different review[1]: > > > > Reviewers hint to a correct solution and you are supposed to > > lookup what that solution means and act accordingly. If you do > > not understand the hint or its implications please ask [...] > > I said the above when I hinted to use DEFINE_SPINLOCK(lock) instead of > static spinlock_t lock. And that requires to lookup what > DEFINE_SPINLOCK() actually does, which is a reasonable request. > > How is the author of that code supposed to figure out what the merit > of s/mx5_pm_init/imx51_init_early/ is? By looking up your preferences > in google or what? Note I didn't suggest to change the function name.
Best regards Uwe
-- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |