Change in coreboot[master]: arch/x86/acpi: Replace Add(a,b,c) with ASL 2.0 syntax

[Nico Huber (Code Review)]

Attention is currently required from: Felix Singer, Lance Zhao, Tim Wawrzynczak.
Nico Huber has posted comments on this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/60645 )

Change subject: arch/x86/acpi: Replace Add(a,b,c) with ASL 2.0 syntax
......................................................................

Patch Set 1:

(1 comment)

Patchset:

PS1: 
Sorry for being so blunt earlier, but you just marked a thread
as resolved just to ignore me. From my point of view, you didn't
resolve anything but actually just wanted to spare you the work.
That's very offensive. It still hurts.

When authors mark threads as resolved that aren't, the only
thing left for the reviewer is a negative review score.
> > IMO, it's attitude like yours why it sometimes looks messy.
>
> What?! Whereever I can I'm trying to improve the overall state, cleaning up the mess and moving things to a common base. And that attitude should be responsible for that? Wow. Well, thanks!

It is not what you do to the code. But the way you do it to the
project. Writing an average patch is only 1/3 of the overall work
to get it integrated without friction. For such cleanup patches
it's even easier, maybe 1/5, and the way you do it, arguing
against reviewers instead of supporting them I'd say you try
to leave 90% of the work (to avoid regressions etc.) to the
reviewer. Not to mention the unnecessary escalation of a simple
review by trying to ignore reviewers.

And then there is this constant argument that somebody should
rubber-stamp your patches because somebody else did in a simi-
lar case. IMO, that's very bad for a project. What do you think
we should do if any of these patches breaks something? Should
we only then review all of them? or should we revert all at
once to be sure? I'm trying to avoid these questions simply
by reviewing by default.
> > People have done so before, i.e. you're too lazy?
>
> What's your problem? Do you want to keep the old syntax? Or do you want to block these patches just because?

I want you to support reviewers so that they don't have to
do most of the work. If you just want to provide an idea
and leave everything to somebody else, it's not working
out.

Well, it could work out, but then you should mark your
patches as TESTME or something. And wait for somebody
else to do it without pushing.