Re: spi: spi-ti-qspi: call pm_runtime_put on pm_runtime_get failure

[Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@xxxxxx>]

> Your updates were not improvements.

I find your view interesting.

Do you refer to a specific wording suggestion here?
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-spi/26028f50-3fb8-eb08-3c9f-08ada018bf9e@xxxxxx/
https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/6/2/210

You pointed another programming alternative out.
https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/comment/1447149/
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-spi/20200602095411.GB5684@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/


> The formatting was worse

Do you prefer an other quotation style for function names?


> and to my native speaker eyes the grammar was worse.

I am curious if a more pleasing wording variant will be found.


> With this sort of stylistic thing it's especially important
> that any review aligns with the needs and practices of the subsystem,

Such an expectation is reasonable to some degree.


> there is opinion in there and multiple opinions just makes things harder
> for submitters.

Do any of such views deviate from the Linux development documentation?

Regards,
Markus