Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 3 Mar 2011 12:02:15 +0100 (CET) | From | Thomas Gleixner <> | Subject | Re: [PATCHv1] ARM: imx: Add support for low power suspend on MX51. |
| |
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?
Using random quotes and failing to see why they don't apply is just another proof of my assumption #1
Thanks,
tglx
| |