Ben Warren wrote:
Larry Johnson wrote:
This patch adds a new switch: "CONFIG_PHY_DYNAMIC_ANEG". When this symbol is defined, the PHY will advertise it's capabilities for autonegotiation based on the capabilities shown in the PHY's status registers, including 1000BASE-X. When "CONFIG_PHY_DYNAMIC_ANEG" is not defined, the PHY will advertise hard-coded capabilities, as before.
I won't address the content yet, just the cosmetic changes that make up the bulk of this patch. I think you've done a good thing by running Lindent (or whatever) on all the files you've touched, but it has the effect of obscuring the meat of your work. No need to re-do it this time, but IMHO, purely cosmetic changes should be separate patches and labeled as such.
Of course, that's just MHO, and others may feel differently. Thoughts?
regards, Ben
Thanks for bringing this up. I noticed the same probelm, but couldn't think of how to handle it. I want to run Lindent on my changes to fix any issues with them, especially as the U-Boot/Linux style is so different from what I'm used to. I thought about running Lindent and copying just my changes back to the original, but that seems error prone (and too much work).
Would it be better to run Lindent on the original files, post those as changes, and then post a second patch with the new material?
BTW, I've noticed that the "Lindent -pcs" format is used inconsistently within files. Since I'm also making changes in Linux, it's hard to remember whether to type "foo(bar);" or "foo (bar);", maybe others have this difficulty, too. I've tried to use the form that is prevalent in each individual file, though some are pretty much split down the middle.
How do others feel?
Regards, Larry