Re: [PATCH] staging: pi433: fix docs typos and references to previous struct names

[Paulo Miguel Almeida <paulo.miguel.almeida.rodenas@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Aug 28, 2021 at 08:12:54AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 28, 2021 at 12:08:36PM +1200, Paulo Miguel Almeida wrote:
> > In the comments there where some grammar mistakes and references to
> > struct names that have gotten renamed over time but not reflected
> > in the comments.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Paulo Miguel Almeida <paulo.miguel.almeida.rodenas@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/staging/pi433/pi433_if.h | 25 ++++++++++++-------------
> >  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/pi433/pi433_if.h b/drivers/staging/pi433/pi433_if.h
> > index d5c1521192c1..1fae62c40661 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/pi433/pi433_if.h
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/pi433/pi433_if.h
> > @@ -5,16 +5,15 @@
> >   * userspace interface for pi433 radio module
> >   *
> >   * Pi433 is a 433MHz radio module for the Raspberry Pi.
> > - * It is based on the HopeRf Module RFM69CW. Therefore inside of this
> > - * driver, you'll find an abstraction of the rf69 chip.
> > + * It is based on the HopeRf Module RFM69CW. Therefore, inside of this
> > + * driver you'll find an abstraction of the rf69 chip.
> >   *
> > - * If needed, this driver could be extended, to also support other
> > - * devices, basing on HopeRfs rf69.
> > + * If needed this driver could also be extended to support other
> > + * devices based on HopeRf rf69 as well as HopeRf modules with a similar
> > + * interface such as RFM69HCW, RFM12, RFM95 and so on.
> >   *
> > - * The driver can also be extended, to support other modules of
> > - * HopeRf with a similar interace - e. g. RFM69HCW, RFM12, RFM95, ...
> >   * Copyright (C) 2016 Wolf-Entwicklungen
> > - *	Marcus Wolf <linux@wolf-entwicklungen.de>
> > + * Marcus Wolf <linux@wolf-entwicklungen.de>
> 
> Indentation of the name should remain here, right?
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h

you are right, I shouldn't have changed that line. Do you need me to
send another patch without that line or can you ignore just that line 
before merging it to your branch? I'm flexible with any approach.

Best regards,

Paulo Almeida