[U-Boot] [PATCH 2/3] image: move all function comments to header file

[Bryan Wu]

On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 3:25 PM, York Sun <yorksun at freescale.com> wrote:
> On 08/15/2014 03:14 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 08/15/2014 04:11 PM, Bryan Wu wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 3:10 PM, York Sun <yorksun at freescale.com> wrote:
>>>> On 08/15/2014 03:07 PM, Bryan Wu wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Jeroen Hofstee <dasuboot at myspectrum.nl> wrote:
>>>>>> Hello Bryan,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 15-08-14 22:55, Bryan Wu wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Several functions comments are C file with function definition, they
>>>>>>> should be moved to header file with function declaration.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also update genimg_get_kernel_addr() comments for CONFIG_FIT case.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Bryan Wu <pengw at nvidia.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why _should_ this be done. In general I would not do it
>>>>>> to keep comment and implementation close to each other.
>>>>>> (In the hope they actually match). Doxygen and likely the
>>>>>> kernel doc thing can pick this up. The only reason I can
>>>>>> think of this being useful is for proprietary code with a public
>>>>>> api, but this is not applicable for u-boot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I was asked to do that by Simon and right now in image.c and image.h
>>>>> it's quite mix.
>>>>> Some of them are in C code with implementation others are in header
>>>>> file with declaration.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was confused by this in u-boot, although in kernel we put comments
>>>>> in C code with implementation.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I prefer to see comments near the implementations.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Then we need another patch to move those comments from header file to C file.
>>
>> Well, I wouldn't do anything just yet. Simon and York need to sort out
>> an agreement first, so we don't just keep writing patches that move
>> stuff back and forth.
>>
> I don't have strong opinion for this case. I would prefer to have the comments
> near the implementation. I understand current code may have mixed style here and
> there. Unless it is a clean up effort, I wouldn't add such patch to a set with
> function change or bug fix.
>

Sure, let's sort out the style firstly and patch is easy to move
stuff. I will folder the comment change of my genimg_get_kernel_addr()
to Patch 1/3 then. and let's ignore this one now.

-Bryan