Hi there As many of you probably know, RISC-V OpenOCD development continues to be done on this fork:
* https://github.com/riscv/riscv-openocd Periodically, changes here are upstreamed to the "main" OpenOCD project and/or patches upstream are pulled down to more closely sync/align the two repos. However an issue that has arisen from time to time is that the latest checkpatch: * https://github.com/openocd-org/openocd/blob/master/tools/scripts/checkpatch.pl has been modified/updated such that previously commited code/patches now fail the latest checks. This obviously causes problems with the merging of upstream patches intoto the RISC-V fork. For example: * https://github.com/riscv/riscv-openocd/pull/816#issuecomment-1474425966 I was just wondering if there were any opinions on the merit or otherwise of going back through historical patches (and other already committed code?) to ensure that they comply with the latest checkpatch at any point in time? The main pros seem to be that it would make the OpenOCD source code more compliant with checkpatch checks and make the pulling of OpenOCD patches to a downstream fork more straightforward (the latter, perhaps understandably, not really being a priority for the "main" OpenOCD project?). But I can certainly also think of some cons :-) - e.g. some patches are allowed deviations from the checkpatch rules, messing with existing committed code/patches risks destabilising things, why do RISC-V development in a fork and not in the upstream project in the first place etc. Anyway - I was just interested in feedback on this and, for what it's worth, if going back through historical patches and getting them to pass the latest checkpatch checks is considered "a good thing" I am willing to help out if necessary. Thanks a lot Regards Tommy
