From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-lf1-x141.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::141]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.90_1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1h0i06-00043Z-6V for barebox@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 04 Mar 2019 07:27:03 +0000 Received: by mail-lf1-x141.google.com with SMTP id x206so2744838lff.3 for ; Sun, 03 Mar 2019 23:27:00 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2019 10:26:56 +0300 From: Antony Pavlov Message-Id: <20190304102656.33754174e40b8cfa63f2d28a@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <7475eecb-5e8e-a827-f04e-b3d8d749edaf@pengutronix.de> References: <20190219141647.2537-1-a.fatoum@pengutronix.de> <20190219141647.2537-3-a.fatoum@pengutronix.de> <20190220101412.5032124aaf26a799c903ec9f@gmail.com> <7475eecb-5e8e-a827-f04e-b3d8d749edaf@pengutronix.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: "barebox" Errors-To: barebox-bounces+u.kleine-koenig=pengutronix.de@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] scripts/checkpatch.pl: rebase on top of upstream v5.0-rc6 To: Ahmad Fatoum Cc: barebox@lists.infradead.org On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 10:55:40 +0100 Ahmad Fatoum wrote: > Hello Antony, > = > On 20/2/19 08:14, Antony Pavlov wrote: > > On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 15:16:47 +0100 > > Ahmad Fatoum 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 =3D $rawline =3D~ /\"([a-zA-Z0-9\-\,\.\+_]+)\"/g; > >> = > >> - # linux device tree files > >> - my $dt_path =3D $root . "/dts/Bindings/"; > >> + my $dt_path =3D $root . "/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/"; > > = > > At the moment it looks like barebox uses both paths ("/dts/Bindings/" a= nd "/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/") > > to store dt-related documentation. > = > Missed this one. I can reinstate it in a v2. I think I should've caught a= ll 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 upstre= am with > some barebox specific changes applied on top, so I assume ensuring the ba= rebox > 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 justifiab= le on its own merits. > = > I could for v2 include a scripts/checkpatch.patch which patches the corre= sponding > 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 k= ernel but not minimize barebox checkpatch vs linux kernel checkpatch diff size. -- = Best regards, =A0 Antony Pavlov _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox