On 22/04/11 18:54, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Graeme Russ, > > In message <4db0cf2f.2020...@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 _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot