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

[Sergio Paracuellos]

On Sun, Mar 17, 2024 at 4:43 PM Justin Swartz
<justin.swartz at risingedge.co.za> wrote:
>
> 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?

It is enough, AFAICT. I found your patchset very easy to review so I
am ok with the patchset as it is. However, at the end this will be
through the mips tree, so let's do what Thomas prefers: add all
patches as they are or squash all of them in one commit.

Thanks,
    Sergio Paracuellos