static inline function style (was Re: [PATCH 3/9 v3] omap: generic: introduce a single check_revision)

[Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>]

Shilimkar, Santosh had written, on 06/25/2010 01:07 PM, the following:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Menon, Nishanth
>> Sent: Friday, June 25, 2010 11:02 PM

[..]

>>>> --- a/arch/arm/plat-omap/include/plat/cpu.h
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/plat-omap/include/plat/cpu.h
>>>> @@ -431,7 +431,18 @@ IS_OMAP_TYPE(3517, 0x3517)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  int omap_chip_is(struct omap_chip_id oci);
>>>> -void omap2_check_revision(void);
>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP2PLUS
>>>> +extern void omap2_check_revision(void);
>>>> +#else
>>>> +static inline void omap2_check_revision(void) {}
>>> I think codingstyle suggest empty function braces to be on next line
>>> like
>>> static inline void omap2_check_revision(void)
>>> {}
>> are you sure about that? can you point me to the documentation for that?
>> Style I followed is off:
>> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-
>> 2.6.git;a=blob;f=Documentation/SubmittingPatches;h=72651f788f4e3536149ef5e7ddfbed96a8f14d2f;hb=HEAD#l
>> 661
>>
> I got similar comment long back and hence remembered. Looks like it's not explicitly documented
changing subject to get folks interested..

i would think that checkpatch should crib about it, but it being an 
automated script, could be messed up sometimes..

but I am curious -
static inline void foo(void) { }
static inline int foo(void)
{
	return -ENODEV;
}

is the style I have seen to date. usually without a functional code, it 
made more sense to have it out of line and more in the style of a normal 
function..

could someone give any suggestions on this?
-- 
Regards,
Nishanth Menon