[U-Boot] [U-Boot, 02/10] arm: s3c24xx: Fix incorrect CONFIG_SYS_S3C2410_NAND_HWECC name

[Scott Wood]

On Sat, 2015-05-02 at 03:18 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On Saturday, May 02, 2015 at 03:11:41 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
> > On Sat, 2015-05-02 at 02:46 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > On Thursday, November 27, 2014 at 03:03:50 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 06:42:50PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > > > The correct name of this symbol is CONFIG_S3C2410_NAND_HWECC , the
> > > > > _SYS is redundant.
> > > > 
> > > > What makes that the correct name?  The symbol is not documented
> > > > anywhere, and while nothing currently tests for the SYS version,
> > > > nothing currently sets the non-SYS version.
> > > > 
> > > > What is SYS redundant with?
> > > > 
> > > > Is this meant to be a user config knob or something that is fixed for a
> > > > given board?
> > > 
> > > u-boot$ git grep CONFIG_SYS_S3C2410_NAND_HWECC
> > > include/configs/VCMA9.h:#define CONFIG_SYS_S3C2410_NAND_HWECC
> > > include/configs/smdk2410.h:#define CONFIG_SYS_S3C2410_NAND_HWECC
> > > 
> > > u-boot$ git grep CONFIG_S3C2410_NAND_HWECC
> > > drivers/mtd/nand/s3c2410_nand.c:#ifdef CONFIG_S3C2410_NAND_HWECC
> > > drivers/mtd/nand/s3c2410_nand.c:#ifdef CONFIG_S3C2410_NAND_HWECC
> > > 
> > > The driver checks the version without _SYS. This is a clear bugfix,
> > > so please apply.
> > 
> > There's a clear bug.  I asked questions to determine whether this is the
> > proper fix (and encourage a better changelog), and you still haven't
> > answered.  It would also be nice if you'd document the symbol while
> > you're at it.
> 
> Adding new stuff (like documentation) is now mandatory part of bugfix ?

I didn't say mandatory.  I said "would be nice".

> I'd expect bugfixes to be taken in to actually fix bugs and not kept out
> of the tree because the submitter didn't also do another random chore.

In this case the lack of documentation feels related to the cause of the
bug -- no authoritative place to say what the proper name is.  I don't
see it as "another random chore".

> Also, I do not know what else should I say besides that the symbol name
> is incorrect and you can clearly see it. If that is not enough ...

The names don't match.  That's a bug.  I was wondering whether the right
thing was to remove SYS in one place or add it in the other (or have we
given up on maintaining the distinction?).  I didn't expect asking that
question to be a huge burden on the patch's progress.  It was also
bundled up in a patchset with a bunch of non-bugfixes, so it didn't seem
like you were asking for urgent handling of this one.

> > In any case, I don't know why you're asking me to apply a patch with an
> > "arm:" subject line, which only touches ARM board config files, instead
> > of asking an ARM custodian.
> 
> You were the only one who responded, 

And look at what I get for doing so. :-)

> but I'm fine if Tom or whoever picks this.

While I would have liked an answer to the questions I asked, it's not
worth arguing over, so:

Acked-by: Scott Wood <scottwood at freescale.com>

-Scott