From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dominik Brodowski Subject: Re: my dothan didn't work with cpufreq... Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 21:38:59 +0200 Sender: cpufreq-bounces@www.linux.org.uk Message-ID: <20040723193859.GC8441@dominikbrodowski.de> References: <40F2FA8B.10307@lifl.fr> <20040713094937.GB8124@dominikbrodowski.de> <1090461320.13505.3.camel@localhost> <20040722060437.GA8888@dominikbrodowski.de> <1090479407.4351.6.camel@localhost> <20040722093126.GA8418@dominikbrodowski.de> <1090517665.5267.9.camel@ixodes.goop.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1090517665.5267.9.camel@ixodes.goop.org> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: cpufreq-bounces+glkc-cpufreq=gmane.org@www.linux.org.uk Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Cc: cpufreq list On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 10:34:25AM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > > > +static const struct cpu_id cpu_ids[] = { > > > + [CPU_BANIAS] = { X86_VENDOR_INTEL, 6, 9, 5 }, > > > + [CPU_DOTHAN_A1] = { X86_VENDOR_INTEL, 6, 13, 1 }, > > > + [CPU_DOTHAN_B0] = { X86_VENDOR_INTEL, 6, 13, 6 }, > > > > Hm, I'm unsure whether this is proper CodingStyle... IIRC, much effort was > > spent in converting such { }s to include the respective "fields", like > > { .x86_vendor = X86_VENDOR_INTEL, x86_family = 6 ... > > and so on. > > For a tiny little structure like this, which is defined immediately > above, this is fine. (CodingStyle makes no mention of structure > initialization.) Again IIRC, it's less about CodingStyle and more about some GCC 3.? warnings? Though, gcc 3.3.4 doesn't complain... Dominik