
Hi Simon,
[…]
diff --git a/include/fdt_support.h b/include/fdt_support.h index 5d4f28d..56185c9 100644 --- a/include/fdt_support.h +++ b/include/fdt_support.h @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ u32 fdt_getprop_u32_default_node(const void *fdt, int off, int cell, const char *prop, const u32 dflt); u32 fdt_getprop_u32_default(const void *fdt, const char *path, const char *prop, const u32 dflt); +int fdt_root(void *fdt);
Please can you add a comment for this in the standard style?
As far as I can see, fdt_root plays a similar role to fdt_chosen and fdt_initrd, all of which are defined in fdt_support.c and used in image-fdt.c's image_setup_libfdt.
Their prototypes are defined in fdt_support.h and neither fdt_chosen nor fdt_initrd have such a comment, so I didn't think it was very consistent to add one for fdt_root when writing the patch.
Now if you think it's worth adding such a comment for the sake of documentation, I don't object to it but it still leaves me with a feeling of inconsistency with regard to other similar prototypes.
You want uncommented code for consistency?? :-)
If you are concerned, you could add a new patch that adds comments for some other functions in fdt_support.h. That would be welcome. But at least, please add comments for new code.
Fair enough, I've just sent out another patch that adds (minimalistic) documentation for all 3 functions.
The problem with that is that no one is going to go through and comment all these APIs. Generally the only way the code quality improves is when people add new features or refactor the code for some reason.
I understand.
Thanks for the review!
int fdt_chosen(void *fdt); int fdt_initrd(void *fdt, ulong initrd_start, ulong initrd_end); void do_fixup_by_path(void *fdt, const char *path, const char *prop, -- 1.9.1
Regards, Simon