Re: [PATCH 26/26] docs: i2c: rename sections so the overall picture is clearer

[Peter Rosin]

On 2020-01-16 11:38, Luca Ceresoli wrote:
> Hi Jean, Peter,
> 
> thanks both for your reviews.
> 
> On 16/01/20 10:49, Jean Delvare wrote:
>> On Mon,  6 Jan 2020 08:49:05 +0100, Luca Ceresoli wrote:
>>> Some of the section names are not very clear. Reading those names in the
>>> index.rst page does not help much in grasping what the content is supposed
>>> to be.
>>>
>>> Rename those sections to clarify their content, especially when reading
>>> the index page.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Luca Ceresoli <luca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Acked-by: Peter Rosin <peda@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Note: here checkpatch complains:
>>>
>>>   WARNING: Missing or malformed SPDX-License-Identifier tag in line 1
>>>
>>> Thas's because those files have no license line. I would gladly add a
>>> proper license line, but what it the correct license here? Should I ask the
>>> authors? GPLv2-only as the kernel default?
>>>
>>> I'd appreciate a guidance here, thanks in advance.
>>
>> I don't think we need a license for such documentation files, so I
>> would just ignore checkpatch.
> 
> That's OK for me.
> 
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/i2c/summary.rst b/Documentation/i2c/summary.rst
>>> index fc69d9567d9d..ae3bbb9fd8f1 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/i2c/summary.rst
>>> +++ b/Documentation/i2c/summary.rst
>>> @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
>>> -=============
>>> -I2C and SMBus
>>> -=============
>>> +==============================
>>> +Introductions to I2C and SMBus
>>> +==============================
>>
>> I would use "Introduction", singular.
> 
> Me too! Fix queued for v2.
> 
> Peter, I assume I can keep your Acked-by in v2 with this small change.

That's fine.

Cheers,
Peter