[U-Boot] [v2 1/6] spi: cadence_qspi: move trigger base configuration in init

[Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>]

On Friday, August 14, 2015 at 03:44:41 AM, vikas wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 08/13/2015 06:43 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > On Friday, August 14, 2015 at 03:24:10 AM, vikas wrote:
> >> Hi Marek,
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> >> On 08/13/2015 10:35 AM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 05:50:18 PM, vikasm wrote:
> >>>> Hi Marek,
> >>> 
> >>> Hi!
> >>> 
> >>>> On 08/12/2015 07:07 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 04:27:29 AM, Vikas Manocha wrote:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Commit message is missing.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Actually subject of the mail was sufficient, this patch just moves the
> >>>> register configuration in init.
> >>> 
> >>> NAK, fix the commit message.
> >>> 
> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Vikas Manocha <vikas.manocha@st.com>
> >>>>>> ---
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Changes in v2: Rebased to master
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>>  drivers/spi/cadence_qspi_apb.c |    9 ++-------
> >>>>>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/spi/cadence_qspi_apb.c
> >>>>>> b/drivers/spi/cadence_qspi_apb.c index d053407..1ae7edf 100644
> >>>>>> --- a/drivers/spi/cadence_qspi_apb.c
> >>>>>> +++ b/drivers/spi/cadence_qspi_apb.c
> >>>>>> @@ -534,6 +534,8 @@ void cadence_qspi_apb_controller_init(struct
> >>>>>> cadence_spi_platdata *plat)
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>>  	/* Indirect mode configurations */
> >>>>>>  	writel((plat->sram_size/2), plat->regbase +
> >>>>>>  	CQSPI_REG_SRAMPARTITION);
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> +	writel(((u32)plat->ahbbase & CQSPI_INDIRECTTRIGGER_ADDR_MASK),
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> You can drop the parenthesis around the first argument, they're
> >>>>> useless. Also, the indent of the second arg should be fixed, I
> >>>>> believe checkpatch might even complain about it.
> >> 
> >> ok for first comment about parenthesis but indent of second arg seems
> >> ok. yes, checkpatch warning was "CHECK: Alignment should match open
> >> parenthesis" but i ignored it. To respect 80 column, i had to move
> >> second arg in another line. Am i missing something ?
> > 
> > Just don't ignore the checkpatch warnings next time please ;-)
> 
> This CHECK message is gonna come in any case if i move second argument in
> second line to restrict 80 column rule. My understanding is to ignore this
> CHECK message.

I'll let others to present their opinion, I stop here.

Best regards,
Marek Vasut