On Fri Jun 6, 2025 at 9:59 PM CEST, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Fri, 6 Jun 2025, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: >> On Fri Jun 6, 2025 at 10:59 AM CEST, Michal Orzel wrote: >> > >> > >> > On 05/06/2025 21:48, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: >> >> Part of an unpicking process to extract bootfdt contents independent of >> >> bootinfo >> >> to a separate file for x86 to take. >> >> >> >> Move functions required for early FDT parsing from device_tree.h and arm's >> >> setup.h onto bootfdt.h >> >> >> >> Declaration motion only. Not a functional change. >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Alejandro Vallejo <agarc...@amd.com> >> >> --- >> >> v2: >> >> * Remove the u32 identifiers in the device_tree_get_u32() implementation >> > I don't understand the reasoning behind changing u32->uint32_t only for one >> > function in this patch while leaving others unmodified. Also what about >> > u64? >> > Either don't change any or change all. >> >> Sure. Let's call the original u32->uint32_t change a misplaced mutation and >> move on. The point is the motion, not these cleanups on top. > > Yes I agree. I know from past experience that Jan doesn't mind changes > during code movements, but for me it is important that changes and code > movement are separate. That is because I have almost automatic ways to > check that code movement is correct if there are no changes. It saves me > a lot of time during review. Then I can look at the individual changes > separately.
That's interesting. Could you please share the runes? That's one side of review I still struggle with. Cheers, Alejandro
