[U-Boot] [PATCH v8 01/14] sf: spi_flash_validate_params => spi_flash_scan

Bin Meng
2015-12-11T06:44:40Z

Hi Jagan,

On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Jagan Teki <jteki@openedev.com> wrote:
> On Friday 11 December 2015 11:51 AM, Bin Meng wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jagan,
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 11:16 PM, Jagan Teki <jteki@openedev.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10 December 2015 at 07:00, Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 2:34 AM, Jagan Teki <jteki@openedev.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Rename spi_flash_validate_params to spi_flash_scan
>>>>> as this code not only deals with params setup but
>>>>> also configure all spi_flash attributes.
>>>>>
>>>>> And also moved all flash related code into
>>>>> spi_flash_scan for future functionality addition.
>>>>>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jagan Teki <jteki@openedev.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> drivers/mtd/spi/sf_probe.c | 145
>>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
>>>>> 1 file changed, 75 insertions(+), 70 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_probe.c b/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_probe.c
>>>>> index a619182..0e20088 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_probe.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_probe.c
>>>>> @@ -130,13 +130,42 @@ bank_end:
>>>>> }
>>>>> #endif
>>>>>
>>>>> -static int spi_flash_validate_params(struct spi_slave *spi, u8
>>>>> *idcode,
>>>>> +#if CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(OF_CONTROL)
>>>>> +int spi_flash_decode_fdt(const void *blob, struct spi_flash *flash)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + fdt_addr_t addr;
>>>>> + fdt_size_t size;
>>>>> + int node;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + /* If there is no node, do nothing */
>>>>> + node = fdtdec_next_compatible(blob, 0,
>>>>> COMPAT_GENERIC_SPI_FLASH);
>>>>> + if (node < 0)
>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + addr = fdtdec_get_addr_size(blob, node, "memory-map", &size);
>>>>> + if (addr == FDT_ADDR_T_NONE) {
>>>>> + debug("%s: Cannot decode address\n", __func__);
>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>> + }
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (flash->size != size) {
>>>>> + debug("%s: Memory map must cover entire device\n",
>>>>> __func__);
>>>>> + return -1;
>>>>> + }
>>>>> + flash->memory_map = map_sysmem(addr, size);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +#endif /* CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(OF_CONTROL) */
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static int spi_flash_scan(struct spi_slave *spi, u8 *idcode,
>>>>> struct spi_flash *flash)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> nits: please align above line to the left (
>>>
>>>
>>> What is the reason, will it be an alignment issue.
>>
>>
>> checkpatch.pl will report such warnings.
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>
> $> ./scripts/checkpatch.pl
> 0001-sf-spi_flash_validate_params-spi_flash_scan.patch
> total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 checks, 195 lines checked
>
> NOTE: Ignored message types: COMPLEX_MACRO CONSIDER_KSTRTO MINMAX
> MULTISTATEMENT_MACRO_USE_DO_WHILE NETWORKING_BLOCK_COMMENT_STYLE
> USLEEP_RANGE
>
> 0001-sf-spi_flash_validate_params-spi_flash_scan.patch has no obvious style
> problems and is ready for submission.
>

This is because your patch did not touch the second line.
checkpatch.pl only reports issues with modified lines.

The alignment was correct before, because the function name is
spi_flash_validate_params(). Now you have renamed it to
spi_flash_scan(), the alignment is wrong.

Regards,
Bin