Hi Jean, Peter, thanks both for your reviews. On 16/01/20 10:49, Jean Delvare wrote: > On Mon, 6 Jan 2020 08:49:05 +0100, Luca Ceresoli wrote: >> Some of the section names are not very clear. Reading those names in the >> index.rst page does not help much in grasping what the content is supposed >> to be. >> >> Rename those sections to clarify their content, especially when reading >> the index page. >> >> Signed-off-by: Luca Ceresoli <luca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Acked-by: Peter Rosin <peda@xxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> >> Note: here checkpatch complains: >> >> WARNING: Missing or malformed SPDX-License-Identifier tag in line 1 >> >> Thas's because those files have no license line. I would gladly add a >> proper license line, but what it the correct license here? Should I ask the >> authors? GPLv2-only as the kernel default? >> >> I'd appreciate a guidance here, thanks in advance. > > I don't think we need a license for such documentation files, so I > would just ignore checkpatch. That's OK for me. >> diff --git a/Documentation/i2c/summary.rst b/Documentation/i2c/summary.rst >> index fc69d9567d9d..ae3bbb9fd8f1 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/i2c/summary.rst >> +++ b/Documentation/i2c/summary.rst >> @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ >> -============= >> -I2C and SMBus >> -============= >> +============================== >> +Introductions to I2C and SMBus >> +============================== > > I would use "Introduction", singular. Me too! Fix queued for v2. Peter, I assume I can keep your Acked-by in v2 with this small change. -- Luca
