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

[Rafał Miłecki]

On 05.03.2021 12:47, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 11:16 AM Rafał Miłecki <rafal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 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!).
>
> 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! :)