Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] mfd: cros_ec: add EC_PWM function definitions

[Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>]

On Fri, 17 Jun 2016, Doug Anderson wrote:

> Lee,
> 
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 1:06 AM, Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> wrote:
> >> Probably the reason for all of these non-kernel-isms is that this
> >> isn't a kernel file.  From the top of the file:
> >>
> >>  * NOTE: This file is copied verbatim from the ChromeOS EC Open Source
> >>  * project in an attempt to make future updates easy to make.
> >>
> >> So the source of truth for this file is
> >> <https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/platform/ec/+/master/include/ec_commands.h>.
> >>
> >> Someone could probably submit a CL to that project to make it a little
> >> more kernel-ish and then we'd have to see if the EC team would accept
> >> such changes...
> >
> > Hmmm... that kinda puts me in a difficult position.  Do I except
> > non-kernel code, which does not conform to our stands?
> 
> What about if Brian made sure to just fully copy the latest version of
> "cros_ec_commands.h" from the EC codebase and changed this commit
> message to say:
> 
> Copy the latest version of "cros_ec_commands.h" from the Chrome OS EC
> code base, which is the source of truth for this file.  See
> <https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/platform/ec/+/master/include/ec_commands.h>.
> 
> From the commit message it would be clear that this is an external
> file linked into the kernel for convenience.
> 
> 
> > Naturally I'd be happier if you could try to make the code more
> > 'kernely'.  The practices I mention above are still good ones, even if
> > you're not writing kernel specific code.
> 
> In general requesting that code from outside the kernel conform to
> "kerneldoc" seems like a bit of a stretch.  In general having some
> type of parse-able format for comments is nice, but I could see that
> in the Chrome OS EC codebase it would be a bit overkill.

It's unfortunate that kerneldoc is named so, since I think it's a nice
way to write structure/function headers regardless of code base and
not overkill at all.  It's certainly harder to convince !kernel code
to use the format, or at least easier for others to push back due to
the fact that is has 'kernel' in the name.

> Also: it would be awfully strange if we suddenly started changing the
> coding convention of this file or we had half the file in one
> convention and half in another.  The rest of this file is in EC
> convention and it seems sane to keep it that way...

Right.  It's also a shame we're only catching this now.  Really we
should have had this discussion in the first instance.

Taking into consideration that this file is already in the kernel and
that it's current format is also represented, I'm willing to keep
adding to it.  I would like to see an internal request to adopt
so-called kerneldoc.  Not because I am wish to blindly push our
standards to other code-bases, but because I am an advocate of the
format in general.

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog