On 1/19/2018 3:57 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 08:57:45AM -0800, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
On Thu 18 Jan 01:13 PST 2018, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
[]..
diff --git a/drivers/soc/qcom/qcom-geni-se.c b/drivers/soc/qcom/qcom-geni-se.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3f43582
--- /dev/null
+++ b/drivers/soc/qcom/qcom-geni-se.c
@@ -0,0 +1,1016 @@
+/*
+ * Copyright (c) 2017-2018, The Linux Foundation. All rights reserved.
+ *
+ * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
+ * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 and
+ * only version 2 as published by the Free Software Foundation.
+ *
+ * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
+ * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
+ * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
+ * GNU General Public License for more details.
+ *
+ */
Please use SPDX style license header, i.e. this file should start with:
// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
/*
* Copyright (c) 2017-2018, The Linux Foundation. All rights reserved.
*/
Looks like Mark Brown commented elsewhere [1] that we should use the C++
commenting style even for the Linux Foundation copyright?
[1] https://marc.info/?l=linux-clk&m=151497978626135&w=2
While I can agree with Mark on the ugliness of the mixed commenting
style, this is the style that I found communicated and is what you find
in other files.
Well, that's pretty new guidance. Moving target...
Given that Linus said '//' comments are the only thing C++ got right, I
expect to see more of them.
I believe that in the source file I have to use C++ style comments(as
per this discussion) and in the header file I have to use C-style
comments (as per https://lwn.net/Articles/739183/ for reasons related to
tooling). Please correct me otherwise.
Rob
Regards,
Karthik.
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
