[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:0.678 / U:0.044 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site