linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v1 4/6] arm64: dts: rockchip: add rk3328 usb3 phy node

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <735d89df-9954-44bd-aca6-4bb165737626@kernel.org>
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2025 10:52:42 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Dragan Simic <dsimic@...jaro.org>
Cc: Diederik de Haas <didi.debian@...ow.org>, Peter Geis
 <pgwipeout@...il.com>, Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>, zyw@...k-chips.com,
 kever.yang@...k-chips.com, frank.wang@...k-chips.com,
 william.wu@...k-chips.com, wulf@...k-chips.com,
 linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org, Alex Bee <knaerzche@...il.com>,
 Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Johan Jonker <jbx6244@...il.com>,
 Jonas Karlman <jonas@...boo.se>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
 Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 4/6] arm64: dts: rockchip: add rk3328 usb3 phy node

On 18/01/2025 10:43, Dragan Simic wrote:
>>>
>>> Please see the commit bdc48fa11e46 (checkpatch/coding-style: deprecate
>>> 80-column warning, 2020-05-29), which clearly shows that the 80-column
>>> rule is still _preferred_, but no longer _mandatory_.
>>
>> I brought that commit, but nice that you also found it.
>>
>> Still: read the coding style, not checkpatch tool.
>>
>>>>> 80 columns is really not much (for the record, I've been around when
>>>>> using 80x25 _physical_ CRT screens was the norm).
>>>>
>>>> You mistake agreement on dropping strong restriction in 2020 in
>>>> checkpatch, which is "not for years" and even read that commit: "Yes,
>>>> staying withing 80 columns is certainly still _preferred_."
>>>>
>>>> Checkpatch is not coding style. Since when it would be? It's just a
>>>> tool.
>>>>
>>>> And there were more talks and the 80-preference got relaxed yet still
>>>> "not for years" (last talk was 2022?) and sill kernel coding style is
>>>> here specific.
>>>
>>> It's perhaps again about the semantics, this time about the meaning
>>> of "for years".  I don't think there's some strict definition of that
>>> term, so perhaps different people see it differently.
>>>
>>> To get back to the above-mentioned commit bdc48fa11e46, the 80-column
>>> limit has obviously been lifted, putting the new 100-column limit as
>>
>> "Lifted" on *CHECKPATCH*, not on coding style. Do you see the

Repeating myself about because you are not addressing the actual difference.

>> difference? One is a helper tool which people were using blindly and
>> wrapping lines without thinking, claiming that checkpatch told them to
>> do so. Other is the actual coding style.
>>
>> You claim that coding style was changed. This never happened.
> 
> It was obviously changed in the commit bdc48fa11e46, by making the
> 80-column width preferred, instead of if being mandatory.  The way
> I read the changes to the coding style introduced in that commit,
> it's now possible to go over 80 columns, up to 100 columns, _if_
> that actually improves the readability of the source code.

The commit is for checkpatch. Point to the change in coding style. You
are bringing argument for checkpatch, so only a tool, as argument for
coding style. Again, coding style did not change since years.


Best regards,
Krzysztof