Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] dts: Self-Discovering Architecture Change

[Luca Vizzarro <Luca.Vizzarro@arm.com>]

Here again I am on the same level as Juraj. Repeating my previous 
comments on commit subject and Bugzilla ID.

Moreover, the subject should be of imperative form according to the 
contributing guidelines. In other words, the first word is always an 
imperative verb. Something like this could work:

   dts: enable self-discovering architecture

About the commit body indicating uncertainty ("I believe..."), there 
shouldn't be space for uncertainty on the tree, but just backed-up 
facts. If you are uncertain about something, make sure to find out if 
the statement stands true and provide the reasoning around it.

You can find out if the call is a standard by looking up the manual[1]. 
In this case it doesn't mention anything except of being related to the 
syscall[2], which is indeed backed up by the POSIX.1 standard. But you 
can attempt to compare it to any other POSIX OS and draw some 
conclusions. For example FreeBSD's manual[3], explicitly states that 
their command is conform to the POSIX.2 standard. And you'll notice that 
FreeBSD's has more options than Linux's. The conclusion I can gather 
here is that Linux's version is not entirely conform and implements only 
a subset. For our usage, this is good enough as it still falls under the 
POSIX umbrella. Therefore, you can change your paragraph into something 
like:

   The POSIX-compliant options of the command `uname` are used
   to determine the system architecture.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Luca

[1] https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man1/uname.1.html
[2] https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/uname.2.html
[3] https://man.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?uname