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

[Rafał Miłecki]

Hi,

On 05.03.2021 10:58, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 6:55 AM Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > 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!).

This isn't a bomb really: 63 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-)

That said I admit I don't know MIPS tree habits. Thomas: do you prefer
smaller patches in case like this?