Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-106035-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2024 13:06:15 +0200
From: Justin Swartz <justin.swartz@risingedge.co.za>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
Cc: Sergio Paracuellos <sergio.paracuellos@gmail.com>, =?UTF-8?Q?Ar=C4=B1?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?n=C3=A7_=C3=9CNAL?= <arinc.unal@arinc9.com>, Rob Herring
 <robh+dt@kernel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski
 <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
 Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>, Matthias Brugger
 <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno
 <angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com>, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org,
 devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/14] mips: dts: ralink: mt7621: improve DTS style
In-Reply-To: <18327bbe-10ad-4b39-ab70-2f74f0d4fb08@linaro.org>
References: <20240316045442.31469-1-justin.swartz@risingedge.co.za>
 <CAMhs-H9ZO-sitsrASuvsEd+ddwVyHH35gj7yAABTqFNfOCGYYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <60512ae2-dd73-4cb6-9514-145f946300fc@linaro.org>
 <5d6c36cb9dd9afda1efb69aa34058517@risingedge.co.za>
 <adefc3ff-86a5-4af7-8276-73d0e0108901@linaro.org>
 <26633d73360e43b2c548f49e544472ea@risingedge.co.za>
 <18327bbe-10ad-4b39-ab70-2f74f0d4fb08@linaro.org>
Message-ID: <8614589cbeb5ca9bd28bb3a34378734d@risingedge.co.za>
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.3.17

On 2024-03-18 11:23, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 17/03/2024 16:43, Justin Swartz wrote:
>> On 2024-03-17 17:29, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> Objections to what? Coding style? Coding style is defined so you 
>>> either
>>> implement it or not... and even if someone disagrees with one line
>>> swap,
>>> why it cannot be done like for every contribution: inline?
>> 
>> I had been asked to include empty lines when I had left them out when
>> I had contributed a patch regarding the serial nodes, which resulted 
>> in
>> a second version of that patch.
> 
> I don't understand why would that matter. It's expected Linux
> development process to receive comments inline in the patch.


>>> Organize your patches how described in submitting patches: one per
>>> logical change. Logical change is to reorder all properties in one
>>> file,
>>> without functional impact.
>> 
>> If I had accidentally deleted or modified an attribute in the process
>> of cleanup, this could have had a functional impact. It's easier to
> 
> How is it relevant? But you did not and splitting simple cleanup
> one-line-per-patch is not affecting this. Just because you could make
> mistake it does not affect patch readability at all.
> 
> Nothing improved with your patch split.


>> notice this sort of omission when the wall of text you're confronted
>> with is as small as possible, and not multiple pages long.
> 
> We are used to handle some length of patches. Multiple scrolls for
> obvious cleanups are not problems. Why aren't you applying this 
> approach
> to everything? Add a new driver with one function per patch and then
> finally Makefile? It would be bisectable and "easy to read" plus
> absolutely unmanageable.


>> But for future reference: is it not enough for the Reviewed-by: 
>> trailer
>> to be sent in response to the cover letter of a patch set if a 
>> reviewer
>> has looked at the entire set?
> 
> Sure, one can. I still need to open and download 14 patches.

Thanks for your input.

I can imagine how these sets of very minor changes might greatly reduce
your signal-to-noise ratio as an upstream maintainer.

I'll try your suggested approach next time.