Hi Eugeniu, On 17/08/18 16:56, Eugeniu Rosca wrote: > Hello Kieran, > > On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 02:44:25PM +0100, Kieran Bingham wrote: >> Hi Eugeniu >> >> Thank you for the patch. >> >> On 12/08/18 14:31, Eugeniu Rosca wrote: >>> Document the support for rcar_can on R8A77965 SoC devices. >>> Add R8A77965 to the list of SoCs which require the "assigned-clocks" and >>> "assigned-clock-rates" properties (thanks, Sergei). Rewrap text. >> >> I don't think you needed to say you rewrapped the text in the commit log >> - but it's fine :) > > IMHO "Rewrap text" is pretty much from the same category as "no > functional change was intended". Indeed, but in this instance - there was a functional change. You modified the paragraph. In fact, mentioning that you have rewrapped the text, thus implying that you have made no functional change might cause a reviewer not to look deeper at the actual differences? > As a reviewer, I would take these > details in the commit description any day (and sometimes I would NAK a > patch which lacks these details), since they precisely express the goals > set by the author and make reviewer's life easier. > > But, of course, preferences vary and therefore I won't elaborate on that > too much. If this was a separate hunk, which you had re-wrapped without making a change to - I would absolutely agree with you here. The 'rewrapping' should be mentioned in the commit message, but this in relation to a paragraph which you had modified. IMO - if you modify a paragraph of text, rewrapping to make sure it fits the constraints is part of that modification ... but ... yes we are debating minor details and preferences here ;) - I have no objection to you mentioning it. Regards Kieran > >> >>> Signed-off-by: Eugeniu Rosca <erosca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Reviewed-by: Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> > > Best regards, > Eugeniu. >
