Hi Jean, > Let me just quote you: > > "This is mostly habitual -- this is what the GNU Coding Standard specifies > for comments and which is enforced for GNU software which I have dealt a > lot with." > > You didn't say it was common sense. You did say that it was what the > GNU Coding Standard specified, and as a consequence, what you were used > to. So please keep your "oh come on" for yourself, you pointed the > discussion in this direction yourself. Well, I take no habits that make no sense in the first place. And I have gone into great lengths to explain and justify what drives me in this case -- I got it from the GNU standard and got convinced it is good, so I got to using it. I can write comments according to a different style, no problem (as long as there is any defined style for a given case), but I have to put some explicit effort into it. Similarly, habitually I write code in the Linux indentation style because I like it, but I can use your hated GNU style (or any other that follows any recognisable rules) as well, except I have to put some brainpower into it. > What matters is not "the pieces of code I am interested in", but the > pieces of code _you_ are the master of, or not. As explained somewhere > else in this thread, you are free to use whatever style you like (as > long as it complies with Documentation/CodingStyle, that is) in new > code you write and in code you maintain. For all the rest, you should > stick to the surrounding style. This is common sense, as you'd say. Well, sorry, but I could only sense the lack of style in this piece of code, which is why I tried to apply some. You are free to disagree and as you have undertaken maintenance of this area I am going to respect it. > BTW, i2c-sibyte should be converted to a proper platform driver, so > that only platforms with such a device instantiate it. The whole of SiByte support should eventually get converted to implement platform initialisation. I started some of this with changes to the sb1250-mac.c Ethernet driver sometime in 2006, but no further progress has been made since. I have other priorities higher on the list, but I have not forgotten about it and will come back at some point unless someone else does it first. > Which legacy driver, "eeprom"? You should probably look into David > Brownell's at24c driver: > http://lists.lm-sensors.org/pipermail/i2c/2008-April/003307.html > If it gets enough attention and testing, it could go upstream quickly. I can see if I can find a couple of cycles to spare and give this piece of code a shot with my SWARM. There is a pair of 128kB EEPROM chips onboard (one as a bootstrap option and one to store configuration) and I have two SDRAM modules installed providing another pair of a smaller size. Maciej
