On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 10:55:40 +0100
Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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 propose to port checkpatch-related patches from linux one by one.
Of course you can join some patches into one please remember this
quote from https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v4.17/process/submitting-patches.html#split-changes
The point to remember is that each patch should make an easily understood
change that can be verified by reviewers. Each patch should be justifiable
on its own merits.
>
> 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?
I suppose that we want to get new checkpatch features/bugfixes from linux kernel
but not minimize barebox checkpatch vs linux kernel checkpatch diff size.
--
Best regards,
Antony Pavlov
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
