Hello Antony,
On 20/2/19 08:14, Antony Pavlov wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 15:16:47 +0100
> Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
>> index 4e17347a8481..48b39fbf962a 100755
>> --- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
>> +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> ...
>
>> @@ -1555,13 +2997,9 @@ sub process {
>>
>> my @compats = $rawline =~ /\"([a-zA-Z0-9\-\,\.\+_]+)\"/g;
>>
>> - # linux device tree files
>> - my $dt_path = $root . "/dts/Bindings/";
>> + my $dt_path = $root . "/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/";
>
> At the moment it looks like barebox uses both paths ("/dts/Bindings/" and "/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/")
> to store dt-related documentation.
Missed this one. I can reinstate it in a v2. I think I should've caught all barebox specifics now.
>
> The patch is very long and very hard to review.
Any suggestion on a better way to do it? It's a straight copy from upstream with
some barebox specific changes applied on top, so I assume ensuring the barebox
changes are accounted for are all the review we need.
I could for v2 include a scripts/checkpatch.patch which patches the corresponding
upstream checkpatch.pl into the barebox checkpatch.pl. That way reviewing would work
like this:
- review checkpatch.patch
- $ patch -R < checkpatch.patch
- $ diff $LINUX/scripts/checkpatch.pl $BAREBOX/scripts/checkpatch.pl
What do you think?
>
> @Sascha
>
> Can we introduce rules on storing dt-documentation?
>
> It looks like we have some dt documentation duplication, e.g.
>
> ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/dallas,ds1307.rst
> ./dts/Bindings/rtc/rtc-ds1307.txt
>
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
