Re: [PATCH V2 mips/linux.git] firmware: bcm47xx_nvram: refactor finding & reading NVRAM

From: "Rafał Miłecki" <rafal@milecki.pl>
To: Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>
Cc: "Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" <f4bug@amsat.org>,
	"Rafał Miłecki" <zajec5@gmail.com>,
	"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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 mips/linux.git] firmware: bcm47xx_nvram: refactor finding & reading NVRAM
Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2021 09:24:58 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4f686c1babf19c42592751b6a11896c9@milecki.pl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210306080007.GB4744@alpha.franken.de>

On 2021-03-06 09:00, Thomas Bogendoerfer wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2021 at 12:56:55PM +0100, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>> 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! :)
> 
> please split it. IMHO the current is patch is hard to review, because 
> of the
> different changes mixed together.

Will do, thank you for comments Philippe, Thomas!