Peter Stuge wrote:
On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 03:33:20PM -0600, Marc Jones wrote:
- DQSTiming_D(pMCTstat, pDCTstatA); /* Get Receiver Enable and DQS signal timing*/
- DQSTiming_D(pMCTstat, pDCTstatA); /* Get Receiver Enable and DQS signal timing */
- print_t("mctAutoInitMCT_D: UMAMemTyping_D\n");
- UMAMemTyping_D(pMCTstat, pDCTstatA); /* Fix up for UMA sizing */
Please keep code changes and whitespace changes apart. In particular when changing things like these (that are not very well known) I think that is important.
Serious?
Yes, afraid so.
You are naking over a couple whitespace changes that get fixed as the code is fixed?
Right.
Do you have concerns that the patch is confused by the changes
Yes, I think it is.
or are you just naking on principal?
No, not really.
This is how I reason:
Ideally whitespace changes should not be needed, all commits should always be formatted perfectly.
In practice this isn't true, and whitespace changes are a good thing. I don't care all that much about whitespace formatting myself, but others do and I agree it does make the code as a whole look more tidy.
But, since the basic assumption is that commits change code and nothing else, I think whitespace changes should be isolated commits, since they clutter code diffs and make human diff processing more difficult.
I think this argument is even more important when code is changed that is not very well-known and well understood.
//Peter
So, yes, you are naking on principal.