From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45016) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fXTTh-0007KH-Nd for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 Jun 2018 11:32:30 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fXTTg-0001we-HN for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 Jun 2018 11:32:29 -0400 References: <20180622134036.23182-1-f4bug@amsat.org> <20180622134036.23182-8-f4bug@amsat.org> <8256c2d4-722c-299f-e8e3-42c1a7f68e1d@amsat.org> <0bf443e6-fd49-9aaf-43fb-f171edf5fd38@redhat.com> <57e04a05-442c-bd4a-2daa-1b690540c061@amsat.org> <2eab61ba-1220-095d-721b-53357104fb45@redhat.com> <9ad2df7b-afa2-8470-6353-facdde6b0587@amsat.org> From: Thomas Huth Message-ID: Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2018 17:32:18 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <9ad2df7b-afa2-8470-6353-facdde6b0587@amsat.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 07/14] hw/i2c/omap_i2c: Use qemu_log_mask(UNIMP) instead of fprintf List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: =?UTF-8?Q?Philippe_Mathieu-Daud=c3=a9?= Cc: Peter Maydell , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-trivial@nongnu.org, qemu-arm@nongnu.org On 25.06.2018 17:07, Philippe Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9 wrote: > On 06/25/2018 11:30 AM, Thomas Huth wrote: >> On 25.06.2018 14:52, Philippe Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9 wrote: >>> On 06/25/2018 03:08 AM, Thomas Huth wrote: >>>> On 22.06.2018 22:10, Philippe Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9 wrote: >>>>> On 06/22/2018 04:38 PM, Thomas Huth wrote: >>>>>> On 22.06.2018 15:40, Philippe Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9 wrote: >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9 >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> hw/i2c/omap_i2c.c | 20 ++++++++++++-------- >>>>>>> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> diff --git a/hw/i2c/omap_i2c.c b/hw/i2c/omap_i2c.c >>>>>>> index 26e3e5ebf6..690876e43e 100644 >>>>>>> --- a/hw/i2c/omap_i2c.c >>>>>>> +++ b/hw/i2c/omap_i2c.c >>>>>>> @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ >>>>>>> * with this program; if not, see = . >>>>>>> */ >>>>>>> #include "qemu/osdep.h" >>>>>>> +#include "qemu/log.h" >>>>>>> #include "hw/hw.h" >>>>>>> #include "hw/i2c/i2c.h" >>>>>>> #include "hw/arm/omap.h" >>>>>>> @@ -339,14 +340,15 @@ static void omap_i2c_write(void *opaque, hw= addr addr, >>>>>>> } >>>>>>> break; >>>>>>> } >>>>>>> - if ((value & (1 << 15)) && !(value & (1 << 10))) { /* MS= T */ >>>>>>> - fprintf(stderr, "%s: I^2C slave mode not supported\n= ", >>>>>>> - __func__); >>>>>>> + if ((value & (1 << 15)) && !(value & (1 << 10))) { /* MS= T */ >>>>>> >>>>>> Please keep the white spaces before the comment if you don't chang= e >>>>>> anything else. >>>>> >>>>> This is a and checkpatch complains... >>>>> >>>>> I can use 4 spaces for this tab. I tried to align with other tab-al= igned >>>>> comments I didn't modify, but the result is messier. Thus a simple = space. >>>> >>>> Oh, sorry, I didn't notice that you've replaced a TAB here. I guess = it's >>>> ok then. But why does checkpatch complain if it is just in the conte= xt >>>> of your modification? That's weird. >>> >>> The first 2 contexts (MST and XA) are fine, however checkpatch compla= ins >>> with the last one (ST_EN): >>> >>> ERROR: code indent should never use tabs >>> #38: FILE: hw/i2c/omap_i2c.c:397: >>> + if (value & (1 << 15)) {^I^I^I^I^I/* ST_EN */$ >>> >>> Since I replaced this one, I also did with the 2 previous. >>> >>> Now I realize I can _not_ add the brackets so I don't have to update = the >>> : >>> >>> if (value & (1 << 15))^I^I^I^I^I/* ST_EN */ >>> - fprintf(stderr, "%s: System Test not supported\n", __fun= c__); >>> + qemu_log_mask(LOG_UNIMP, >>> + "%s: System Test not supported\n", __func_= _); >>> break; >>> >>> I think if it better to unify the code style when possible, but it is= up >>> to you, if you prefer I can resend with tabs and no brackets. >> >> I think it's OK to fix up the coding style here, too. Maybe just menti= on >> it in the patch description ("While we're at it, change TABs to spaces >> and add missing curly braces to the surounding if-statements" or so). >=20 > OK. If that's fine with you I won't respin the whole series for this > comment, but if I have to respin for another reason I'll improve the > comment. Fine for me! Thomas