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
