>>> it will print an error message by itself when platform_get_irq() >>> goes wrong. so don't need dev_err() in here again. >> >> I suggest to improve the commit message considerably. > > I suggest you ignore Markus' suggestion. > > The commit message is OK. I would appreciate if such a view can be reconsidered. I got used to looking at information which can be provided there. Thus I occasionally notice further change possibilities also at this place. Examples: * Should the first word in English sentences start with a capital letter? * Which value do you give to an imperative wording in the change description? * Will an other word order become helpful here? * Can it be relevant to refer to questionable error messages instead of the mentioned function name? > The subject _could_ have included "platform_get_irq" something like > > Subject: [PATCH v2] i2c: busses: Remove platform_get_irq()'s duplicated dev_err() I find such a suggestion for a patch subject also a bit nicer. > but I believe it's not important enough to redo. Will your idea be picked up for the final commit title? Regards, Markus
