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. > 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
