On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger < [email protected]> wrote:
> On 11.12.2008 02:19, ron minnich wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 5:12 PM, Peter Stuge <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote: > >> > >>> In the past, reviews were mostly centered on coding style (not only > >>> cosmetics, but also code flow) and general sanity. While that is > >>> definitely needed, I propose another layer on top of this: > >>> > >>> Verification of the code and comments against data sheet > >>> recommendations and documentation. > >>> > >> I feel very strongly that we do not need more layers. > >> > > Let me rephrase that. > I do not want to hold back any commits. That would be insane. > > However, whenever someone goes through in-tree code and checks the code > against the data sheets and thinks that the code is OK, he/she should be > free (not obliged) to improve annotation/comments and add a comment that > he/she verified the code against the data sheets. IMO, if we do this, we need to also require the datasheet revision/release date and if any update notes or errata are taken into account. -Corey > > > > > There are problems anyway. What if the doco are known to be wrong, due > > to an NDA, and you can't even say "the doco is wrong". > > > > If the NDA is so strict that you can't even say that the docs are wrong, > how are you preventing erroneous "bugfixes" from being committed? I > honestly have no idea how to solve that problem and it exists regardless > of whether my RFC is accepted or not. > > > > Sorry, I vote with peter. > > > > I understand that because my original RFC implied things I didn't want > to suggest. How about the new text I proposed above? > > Regards, > Carl-Daniel > > -- > http://www.hailfinger.org/ > > > -- > coreboot mailing list: [email protected] > http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot >
-- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
