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, 1 Jun 2021 10:05:03 +0100
From:   Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
To:     Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?= 
        <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
        linux-leds@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/15] leds: leds-gpio-register: Supply description for
 param 'id'
Message-ID: <20210601090503.GY543307@dell>
References: <20210528090629.1800173-1-lee.jones@linaro.org>
 <20210528090629.1800173-3-lee.jones@linaro.org>
 <20210528094118.xw53q46i676wx6gb@pengutronix.de>
 <20210528095531.GO543307@dell>
 <20210528103532.5n6zzr26hqglvz2p@pengutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20210528103532.5n6zzr26hqglvz2p@pengutronix.de>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 28 May 2021, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:

> Hey Lee,
> 
> On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 10:55:31AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Fri, 28 May 2021, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 10:06:16AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/leds/leds-gpio-register.c b/drivers/leds/leds-gpio-register.c
> > > > index b9187e71e0cf2..de3f12c2b80d7 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/leds/leds-gpio-register.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/leds/leds-gpio-register.c
> > > > @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@
> > > >  /**
> > > >   * gpio_led_register_device - register a gpio-led device
> > > >   * @pdata: the platform data used for the new device
> > > > + * @id: platform ID
> > > >   *
> > > 
> > > Given that id is the first parameter and pdata the second I suggest to
> > > swap the order here and describe id first.
> > 
> > That's super picky.
> > 
> > I can do it as a follow-up patch if you *really* care about it.
> 
> I'd say introducing the one-line description for id now in the "wrong"
> location and then reordering as a followup is ridiculus. But having said
> that: I don't care at all.

It's only "wrong" according to you.

I see these presented in a different order to their counterparts all
the time.  I do however appreciate that it does make more sense and
is easier on the eye, which is why I am more than happy to rectify.

With regards to the follow-up scenario, it makes far less sense for an
already merged patch in a history tree to be reverted, or for history
to be unnecessarily re-written for something as trivial as this.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog