[libcamera-devel] [PATCH] libcamera: media_device: fix typo in documentation for MediaDevice::devnode()

[Kieran Bingham]

Hi Niklas,

On 21/01/2019 15:38, Niklas Söderlund wrote:
> Hi Kieran,
> 
> On 2019-01-21 15:33:54 +0000, Kieran Bingham wrote:
>> Hi Niklas,
>>
>> On 21/01/2019 15:12, Niklas Söderlund wrote:
>>> Signed-off-by: Niklas Söderlund <niklas.soderlund at ragnatech.se>
>>> ---
>>>  src/libcamera/media_device.cpp | 2 +-
>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/src/libcamera/media_device.cpp b/src/libcamera/media_device.cpp
>>> index 0ee55060aa9b5d23..a346296bc38e8f3d 100644
>>> --- a/src/libcamera/media_device.cpp
>>> +++ b/src/libcamera/media_device.cpp
>>> @@ -281,7 +281,7 @@ int MediaDevice::populate()
>>>  
>>>  /**
>>>   * \fn MediaDevice::devnode()
>>> - * \brief Retrieve the media device device node path
>>> + * \brief Retrieve the media device devnode path
>>
>> I would have just deleted one of the duplicates, and put
>>  "Retrieve the media device node path"
>>
>> device devnode feels a bit repetitive, because the 'dev' is short for
>> device ;)
> 
> That's what I did at first. Then I read the \return description which 
> uses devnode. I'm fine either way, let me know what you think.

git blame points to Laurent on this line - so I'll defer to him if you
want a final say.

My feel would be that below is defining "MediaDevice" and "devnode" as
the two entities are named in the code. Here in the brief, I would use
more 'conversational' explanations.

>>
>>
>>>   * \return The MediaDevice devnode path
>>>   */
>>>  
>>>
> 

-- 
Regards
--
Kieran