Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 13 Oct 2020 21:29:52 +0800
From:   Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com>
To:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Cc:     Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-gpio <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] gpio: uapi: documentation improvements
Message-ID: <20201013132952.GA219958@sol>
References: <20201005070329.21055-1-warthog618@gmail.com>
 <CAMpxmJUbxuAHmcf_1vP27qb1gSXTfE1OBb8X3MSoESpa=pycgQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACRpkdZ+9-bFg1zYXE=ppGUa0OY0f9-+QRefd1q1OMsLEdh1dg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CACRpkdZ+9-bFg1zYXE=ppGUa0OY0f9-+QRefd1q1OMsLEdh1dg@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 03:21:47PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 5:46 PM Bartosz Golaszewski
> <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 9:03 AM Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm intending to add some GPIO chardev documentation to
> > > Documentation/admin-guide/gpio/chardev.rst (or perhaps
> > > Documentation/userspace-api/??), but that is taking longer than I'd like,
> > > so in the meantime here is a collection of minor documentation tidy-ups
> > > and improvements to the kernel-doc that I've made along the way.
> > > Hopefully nothing controversial - mainly formatting improvements,
> > > and a couple of minor wording changes.
> 
> > For the entire series:
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>
> >
> > Linus: can you take them for v5.10 through your tree directly?
> 
> I am waiting for Kent to respin them addressing Andy's comments
> on patch 5/5 then they can go in as fixes I think.
> 

I had replied to Andy's comments - I'm prefer with my version than his
suggestion:

"I'm not keen on that alternative as what it suggests is actually a
pointer comparison, and even if the user realizes that they may instead
use "strlen(label) == 0", when they shouldn't be assuming that a null
terminator is present in the array.  I avoided mentioning "string" and
kept it in terms of the char array for the same reason."

Cheers,
Kent.