Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 5 Apr 2013 16:00:04 +0530 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Raname index as data in cpufreq_frequency_table | From | Viresh Kumar <> |
| |
On 31 March 2013 09:16, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote: > On 31 March 2013 07:16, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote: >> On Sunday, March 31, 2013 07:03:04 AM Viresh Kumar wrote: >>> On 31 March 2013 03:31, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote: >>> > Sorry, I won't apply this. It changes too much stuff at a time and I'm not >>> > really sure if the change being made is necessary. >>> >>> Hmm.. I thought it is important as it puts the real meaning of "index" in the >>> code. >> >> And what does that change, really? What about documenting the meaning of >> "index" instead? > > Probably not the logic but perception. People don't necessarily go through > Documentation but code for writing new stuff. And so code should reflect the > real meaning. > > In case we write something like following in documentation: > "Index: This is driver specific data for each frequency. Core doesn't use it." > > Then "Index" looks even more wrong. Its not the right name for any such > variable. And so it should be fixed.
Forgot reply to all earlier :(
You have any more comments on this patch? I really thought this change would be good. I agree it touches lot of stuff but for clean/clear code.
-- viresh
| |