linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] docs: dt-bindings: Specify ordering for properties within groups

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: <f9779027-63cf-4cb7-8399-1f3f1843c900@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2025 13:41:38 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Dragan Simic <dsimic@...jaro.org>
Cc: robh@...nel.org, krzk+dt@...nel.org, conor+dt@...nel.org,
 heiko@...ech.de, devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] docs: dt-bindings: Specify ordering for properties
 within groups

On 07/03/2025 10:50, Dragan Simic wrote:
>>> Applying strict alpha-numerical ordering can result in property lists 
>>> that
>>> are suboptimal from the usability standpoint.  For the provided 
>>> example,
>>> which stems from a real-world DT, [2][3][4] applying strict 
>>> alpha-numerical
>>> ordering produces the following undesirable result:
>>
>> BTW, your entire commit msg still has incorrect wrapping. Please use
>> standard editors which understand Git commit msg style (which I believe
>> is equal to Linux submitting patches).
> 
> Sorry, but what makes the wrapping wrong?  I wrap patch descriptions
> at or well before 78 columns, which I belive is the desired way to do
> so.  The longest line in this patch description is 77 characters long,
> which is still below 78 characters.

Because it is not correct. Read submitting patches. Run checkpatch.

> 
> Also, please note that I don't "just use" some random editor, but I use
> a highly customized Vim setup, in which I over time wrote about 46 KB
> of Vimscript code in my ~/.vimrc, all by hand.  I've even contributed
> smaller patches to Vim.

OK, so not random, but incorrectly configured. Different tools, same result.


Best regards,
Krzysztof