On 22/04/11 18:54, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear Graeme Russ,
In message 4DB0CF2F.2020701@gmail.com you wrote:
That said, if someone wants to maintain a U-Boot version, that'd be great.
So, if someone maintains a U-Boot fork of checkpatch, keeps it up-to-date with the Linux version, and pushes patches back up to Linux (to keep them is sync as much as practicable possible) would we agree that that would be the most favoured solution?
I'm looking at checkpatch now (and its change history) - If I think I can take it on, I will send out a call for U-Boot specific checkpatch features
I think it wouldbe even better if we could push our changes back into the "mainline" version of checkpatch, so that the U-Boot specific behaviour can beenabled by a command line option (checkpatch --uboot ?).
Forking is not so preferrable here, I think.
I agree, but if the Linux guys won't accept patches for U-Boot specific semantics, what choice do we have?
Regards,
Graeme