Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 mips/linux.git] firmware: bcm47xx_nvram: refactor
 finding & reading NVRAM
To:     =?UTF-8?Q?Philippe_Mathieu-Daud=c3=a9?= <f4bug@amsat.org>
Cc:     =?UTF-8?B?UmFmYcWCIE1pxYJlY2tp?= <zajec5@gmail.com>,
        Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>,
        "open list:BROADCOM NVRAM DRIVER" <linux-mips@vger.kernel.org>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        Vivek Unune <npcomplete13@gmail.com>,
        bcm-kernel-feedback-list <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
References: <20210304072357.31108-1-zajec5@gmail.com>
 <20210305055501.13099-1-zajec5@gmail.com>
 <CAAdtpL7iWiumiOwMOH1xiBZvyOB0HB7W-9MMHoPPxkb3Srme=w@mail.gmail.com>
 <f4045af5-4866-6fc9-f34a-d789a7febb77@milecki.pl>
 <CAAdtpL5CMTaB6qCR=nZj+1MoGC97_BVd-r30E2RRYOhiktOiZQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   =?UTF-8?B?UmFmYcWCIE1pxYJlY2tp?= <rafal@milecki.pl>
Message-ID: <c66d6d99-affd-f833-1689-32394bc6a548@milecki.pl>
Date:   Fri, 5 Mar 2021 12:56:55 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAAdtpL5CMTaB6qCR=nZj+1MoGC97_BVd-r30E2RRYOhiktOiZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On 05.03.2021 12:47, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 11:16 AM Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl> wrote:
>> On 05.03.2021 10:58, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 6:55 AM Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
>>>>
>>>> 1. Use meaningful variable names (e.g. "flash_start", "res_size" instead
>>>>      of e.g. "iobase", "end")
>>>> 2. Always operate on "offset" instead of mix of start, end, size, etc.
>>>
>>> "instead of a mix"
>>>
>>>> 3. Add helper checking for NVRAM to avoid duplicating code
>>>> 4. Use "found" variable instead of goto
>>>> 5. Use simpler checking of offsets and sizes (2 nested loops with
>>>>      trivial check instead of extra function)
>>>
>>> This could be a series of trivial patches, why did you choose to make a mixed
>>> bag harder to review?
>>
>> It's a subjective thing and often a matter of maintainer taste. I can
>> say that after contributing to various Linux subsystems. If you split a
>> similar patch for MTD subsystem you'll get complains about making
>> changes too small & too hard to review (sic!).
> 
> Fine. MTD subsystem developers are probably smarter than I'm :)
> 
>> This isn't a bomb really: 63 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-)
> 
> Too many changes at once for my brain stack doesn't mean others are
> willing to review it. But to me that means each time I'll have to pass over
> it while bisecting or reviewing git history I'll suffer the same overflow.
> Anyway, matter of taste as you said.

If I hear another voice for splitting this change into smaller patches
I'm 100% happy to do so. Honestly!

I just don't know if by splitting I won't annoy other people by making
changes too small.

Please speak up! :)