[lkml]   [2011]   [Mar]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [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



     \ /
      Last update: 2011-03-03 12:05    [W:0.026 / U:9.280 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site