On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 1:02 PM Alan Carvalho de Assis <acas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Normally only common code on NuttX needs to follow the C89 standard > The presubmit flips out about C99 comments. Even that's too radical. So much for being king. :-) > Also should use tools/checkpatch.sh to check your patch/files before > submitting the PR. > Yes, I should have. Presubmit kicked it back. I'm guessing with a name like "inviolables", I'm going to change nothing by saying it, but this whitespace convention is totally alien to me. There is just So Much Whitespace. Is there a clang format or something that implements this? > There's a LOT of duplication within arch/risc-v and where there is See my recent PR for an example of just how much redundant, copy-paste, machine-edit is really necessary for a new port. > And even a draft PR: > https://github.com/apache/incubator-nuttx/pull/2822 That's a PR that seems to have collapsed under its own weight. What needs to happen to get that going? Should I separate the "delete files" from "edit files" and resubmit that as two different, hopefully more reviewable PRs? That doesn't even really scratch the surface of the problem, though. Look at how many copies of everything exists within the various risc-v directories. You can't even really tell what's the same because all the #defines have the target name in them, though. If we climb ot of the the risc-v trees, it looks like we have dozens of different 16550 implementations, each that was created as a copy + machine edit. This doesn't seem to trouble anyone else, so maybe I should let that go, too. Re: device tree, there's a PR that's been pending for a year almost to the day. That also seems to have coasted to a halt without a clear rejection or path to acceptance. Working Device Tree would have made most of the BeagleV - and the upcoming D1 - ports almost trivial. I'm probably rocking too many boats at once. Maybe I should tuck my head down and go with this project's One True Ways. Thanx, RJL
