[PATCH 00/14] mips: dts: ralink: mt7621: improve DTS style

[Justin Swartz]

On 2024-03-17 17:29, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 17/03/2024 16:22, Justin Swartz wrote:
>> On 2024-03-17 17:10, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 16/03/2024 16:49, Sergio Paracuellos wrote:
>>>> On Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 5:54 AM Justin Swartz
>>>> <justin.swartz at risingedge.co.za> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> This set of patches was created with the intention of cleaning up
>>>>> arch/mips/boot/dts/ralink/mt7621.dtsi so that it is aligned with
>>>>> the Devicetree Sources (DTS) Coding Style [1] [2] guide.
>>>>> 
>>>>> [1] Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dts-coding-style.rst
>>>>> 
>>>>> [2] 
>>>>> https://docs.kernel.org/devicetree/bindings/dts-coding-style.html
>>>>> 
>>>>> Justin Swartz (14):
>>>>>   mips: dts: ralink: mt7621: reorder cpu node attributes
>>>>>   mips: dts: ralink: mt7621: reorder cpuintc node attributes
>>>>>   mips: dts: ralink: mt7621: reorder mmc regulator attributes
>>>>>   mips: dts: ralink: mt7621: reorder sysc node attributes
>>>>>   mips: dts: ralink: mt7621: reorder gpio node attributes
>>>>>   mips: dts: ralink: mt7621: reorder i2c node attributes
>>>>>   mips: dts: ralink: mt7621: reorder spi0 node attributes
>>>>>   mips: dts: ralink: mt7621: move pinctrl and sort its children
>>>>>   mips: dts: ralink: mt7621: reorder mmc node attributes
>>>>>   mips: dts: ralink: mt7621: reorder gic node attributes
>>>>>   mips: dts: ralink: mt7621: reorder ethernet node attributes and
>>>>> kids
>>>>>   mips: dts: ralink: mt7621: reorder pcie node attributes and
>>>>> children
>>>>>   mips: dts: ralink: mt7621: reorder pci?_phy attributes
>>> 
>>> These are all simple cleanups for the same file. It's one patch, not
>>> 15.
>> 
>> I agree these are all simple cleanups.
>> 
>> Even though the cleanup pattern was the same, or very similar,
>> for each node affected, the intention was to isolate each change
>> to a single node (or a grouping of nodes of that seemed logical
>> to me) so that if anyone had any objections, the discussion would
>> be easier to follow in subthreads identifiable by patch names (and
> 
> 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.


> 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
notice this sort of omission when the wall of text you're confronted
with is as small as possible, and not multiple pages long.


>> But if there're no objections and it lessens the burden on
>> maintainers upstream to have less patches to apply, then I have no
>> problem combining them into a single patch.
>> 
> 
> Yeah, one review response instead of 14 responses... One commit in the
> history instead of 14.

I agree that 1 commit vs 14 is better.

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?

Regards
Justin