Re: [v2] i2c: busses: remove duplicate dev_err()

[Markus Elfring]

>>> it will print an error message by itself when platform_get_irq()
>>> goes wrong. so don't need dev_err() in here again.
>>
>> I suggest to improve the commit message considerably.
>
> I suggest you ignore Markus' suggestion.
>
> The commit message is OK.

I would appreciate if such a view can be reconsidered.

I got used to looking at information which can be provided there.
Thus I occasionally notice further change possibilities
also at this place.

Examples:
* Should the first word in English sentences start with a capital letter?

* Which value do you give to an imperative wording in the change description?

* Will an other word order become helpful here?

* Can it be relevant to refer to questionable error messages
  instead of the mentioned function name?


> The subject _could_ have included "platform_get_irq" something like
>
> Subject: [PATCH v2] i2c: busses: Remove platform_get_irq()'s duplicated dev_err()

I find such a suggestion for a patch subject also a bit nicer.


> but I believe it's not important enough to redo.

Will your idea be picked up for the final commit title?

Regards,
Markus