On 22/04/11 02:10, Scott Wood wrote: > On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 16:29:17 +0200 > Detlev Zundel <d...@denx.de> wrote: > >> Hi Scott, >> >>> I vote for "checkpatch is a tool that can help you find some style problems, >>> but is imperfect, and the things it complains about are of varying >>> importance". If you insist on zero warnings, what's the difference between >>> a warning and an error? And will there then be a U-Boot-specific coding >>> style document to match? Will anyone that wants to submit a patch that >>> checkpatch erroneously complains about have to first submit a patch for >>> checkpatch (first learning Perl if need be)? >> >> So you would agree to this text: >> >> Checkpatch is a tool that can help you find some style problems, but is >> imperfect, and the things it complains about are of varying importance. >> So use common sense in interpreting the results. Warnings that clearly >> only make sense in the Linux kernel can be ignored. > > Yes. > > 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 Regards, Graeme _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
