From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Graeme Russ Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 20:52:07 +1000 Subject: [U-Boot] Policy for checkpatch usage? In-Reply-To: <20110422085438.5A720D52684@gemini.denx.de> References: <20110420115129.2a70418b@schlenkerla.am.freescale.net> <20110421111036.2abb4255@schlenkerla.am.freescale.net> <4DB0CF2F.2020701@gmail.com> <20110422085438.5A720D52684@gemini.denx.de> Message-ID: <4DB15DD7.8050404@gmail.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On 22/04/11 18:54, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Graeme Russ, > > In message <4DB0CF2F.2020701@gmail.com> you wrote: >> >>> That said, if someone wants to maintain a U-Boot version, that'd be great. >> >> So, if someone maintains a U-Boot fork of checkpatch, keeps it up-to-date >> with the Linux version, and pushes patches back up to Linux (to keep them >> is sync as much as practicable possible) would we agree that that would be >> the most favoured solution? >> >> I'm looking at checkpatch now (and its change history) - If I think I can >> take it on, I will send out a call for U-Boot specific checkpatch features > > I think it wouldbe even better if we could push our changes back into > the "mainline" version of checkpatch, so that the U-Boot specific > behaviour can beenabled by a command line option (checkpatch --uboot ?). > > Forking is not so preferrable here, I think. > I agree, but if the Linux guys won't accept patches for U-Boot specific semantics, what choice do we have? Regards, Graeme