Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 17 Mar 2024 17:43:27 +0200 | From | Justin Swartz <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 00/14] mips: dts: ralink: mt7621: improve DTS style |
| |
On 2024-03-17 17:29, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 17/03/2024 16:22, Justin Swartz wrote: >> On 2024-03-17 17:10, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> On 16/03/2024 16:49, Sergio Paracuellos wrote: >>>> On Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 5:54 AM Justin Swartz >>>> <justin.swartz@risingedge.co.za> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> This set of patches was created with the intention of cleaning up >>>>> arch/mips/boot/dts/ralink/mt7621.dtsi so that it is aligned with >>>>> the Devicetree Sources (DTS) Coding Style [1] [2] guide. >>>>> >>>>> [1] Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dts-coding-style.rst >>>>> >>>>> [2] >>>>> https://docs.kernel.org/devicetree/bindings/dts-coding-style.html >>>>> >>>>> Justin Swartz (14): >>>>> mips: dts: ralink: mt7621: reorder cpu node attributes >>>>> mips: dts: ralink: mt7621: reorder cpuintc node attributes >>>>> mips: dts: ralink: mt7621: reorder mmc regulator attributes >>>>> mips: dts: ralink: mt7621: reorder sysc node attributes >>>>> mips: dts: ralink: mt7621: reorder gpio node attributes >>>>> mips: dts: ralink: mt7621: reorder i2c node attributes >>>>> mips: dts: ralink: mt7621: reorder spi0 node attributes >>>>> mips: dts: ralink: mt7621: move pinctrl and sort its children >>>>> mips: dts: ralink: mt7621: reorder mmc node attributes >>>>> mips: dts: ralink: mt7621: reorder gic node attributes >>>>> mips: dts: ralink: mt7621: reorder ethernet node attributes and >>>>> kids >>>>> mips: dts: ralink: mt7621: reorder pcie node attributes and >>>>> children >>>>> mips: dts: ralink: mt7621: reorder pci?_phy attributes >>> >>> These are all simple cleanups for the same file. It's one patch, not >>> 15. >> >> I agree these are all simple cleanups. >> >> Even though the cleanup pattern was the same, or very similar, >> for each node affected, the intention was to isolate each change >> to a single node (or a grouping of nodes of that seemed logical >> to me) so that if anyone had any objections, the discussion would >> be easier to follow in subthreads identifiable by patch names (and > > Objections to what? Coding style? Coding style is defined so you either > implement it or not... and even if someone disagrees with one line > swap, > why it cannot be done like for every contribution: inline?
I had been asked to include empty lines when I had left them out when I had contributed a patch regarding the serial nodes, which resulted in a second version of that patch.
> Organize your patches how described in submitting patches: one per > logical change. Logical change is to reorder all properties in one > file, > without functional impact.
If I had accidentally deleted or modified an attribute in the process of cleanup, this could have had a functional impact. It's easier to notice this sort of omission when the wall of text you're confronted with is as small as possible, and not multiple pages long.
>> But if there're no objections and it lessens the burden on >> maintainers upstream to have less patches to apply, then I have no >> problem combining them into a single patch. >> > > Yeah, one review response instead of 14 responses... One commit in the > history instead of 14.
I agree that 1 commit vs 14 is better.
But for future reference: is it not enough for the Reviewed-by: trailer to be sent in response to the cover letter of a patch set if a reviewer has looked at the entire set?
Regards Justin
| |