From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Graeme Russ <graeme.russ@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 15:37:15 +1000
Subject: [U-Boot] Policy for checkpatch usage?
In-Reply-To: <20110422124603.CC5FCD52684@gemini.denx.de>
References: <m2liz5gtr3.fsf@ohwell.denx.de>
	<BANLkTin0aHgyFVi2_z8EJ1vCArO24Qot7A@mail.gmail.com>
	<20110420115129.2a70418b@schlenkerla.am.freescale.net>
	<m2k4enekzm.fsf@ohwell.denx.de>
	<20110421111036.2abb4255@schlenkerla.am.freescale.net>
	<4DB0CF2F.2020701@gmail.com>
	<20110422085438.5A720D52684@gemini.denx.de>
	<4DB15DD7.8050404@gmail.com>
	<20110422124603.CC5FCD52684@gemini.denx.de>
Message-ID: <4DB5088B.1020600@gmail.com>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
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 22:46, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Graeme Russ,
> 
> In message <4DB15DD7.8050404@gmail.com> you wrote:
>>
>>> 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?
> 
> Did you ask him, and he refused, or is this just a hypothetical
> question?
> 

I have now asked on LKML - Let's see what unfolds...

Regards,

Graeme