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:

quoted

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@lucaceresoli.net>
Acked-by: Peter Rosin <redacted>
---

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.

quoted

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.

-- 
Luca