[U-Boot] Policy for checkpatch usage?

[Graeme Russ]

On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 2:51 AM, Scott Wood <scottwood at freescale.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 20:15:40 +1000
> Graeme Russ <graeme.russ at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, April 20, 2011, Detlev Zundel <dzu at denx.de> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>>
>> >
>> > As a base for discussion, what about this:
>> >
>> >   Use common sense in interpreting the results of checkpatch. Warnings
>> >   that clearly only make sense in the Linux kernel can be ignored.  Also
>> >   warnings produced for _context lines_ rather than actual changes can
>> >   also be ignored.
>>
>> One man's common sense is another's idiocy
>>
>> I vote for a zero warnings, zero errors U-Boot specific checkpatch
>
> I vote for "checkpatch is a tool that can help you find some style problems,
> but is imperfect, and the things it complains about are of varying
> importance".  If you insist on zero warnings, what's the difference between
> a warning and an error?  And will there then be a U-Boot-specific coding
> style document to match?  Will anyone that wants to submit a patch that
> checkpatch erroneously complains about have to first submit a patch for
> checkpatch (first learning Perl if need be)?
>
> There's a lot more "common sense" that needs to be applied when writing
> software than where to stick what kind and amount of whitespace.
> Guidelines are good -- zero-tolerance obedience to a script, not so much.
>

Point taken.

What about my other suggestion - A checkpatch summary with an expalation
for any warnings or errors? See for example my heads-up for checkpatch
warnings - http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2011-April/090144.html

Regards,

Graeme