Re: [PATCH 00/14] mips: dts: ralink: mt7621: improve DTS style

Justin Swartz
2024-03-18T11:06:21Z

On 2024-03-18 11:23, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 17/03/2024 16:43, Justin Swartz wrote:
>> On 2024-03-17 17:29, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> 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.
>
> I don't understand why would that matter. It's expected Linux
> development process to receive comments inline in the 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
>
> How is it relevant? But you did not and splitting simple cleanup
> one-line-per-patch is not affecting this. Just because you could make
> mistake it does not affect patch readability at all.
>
> Nothing improved with your patch split.

>> notice this sort of omission when the wall of text you're confronted
>> with is as small as possible, and not multiple pages long.
>
> We are used to handle some length of patches. Multiple scrolls for
> obvious cleanups are not problems. Why aren't you applying this
> approach
> to everything? Add a new driver with one function per patch and then
> finally Makefile? It would be bisectable and "easy to read" plus
> absolutely unmanageable.

>> 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?
>
> Sure, one can. I still need to open and download 14 patches.

Thanks for your input.

I can imagine how these sets of very minor changes might greatly reduce
your signal-to-noise ratio as an upstream maintainer.

I'll try your suggested approach next time.