From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 18:16:14 -0500
Subject: [U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] Add MIMC200 board - now uses
	board_eth_init()
In-Reply-To: <20080729230421.8C5A3248B9@gemini.denx.de>
References: <20080729230421.8C5A3248B9@gemini.denx.de>
Message-ID: <488FA4BE.1040307@freescale.com>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> In message <20080728202251.GA28802@ld0162-tx32.am.freescale.net> you wrote:
>> Aligning with TABs (or at all, in initializer lists) is not a good thing,
> 
> It is mandatory per Coding Style requirements.

Where?  I don't see any mention of alignment, and while there's no 
explicit definition of indentation, the rationale states that the choice 
of 8 characters for indentation is "to clearly define where
a block of control starts and ends", which has nothing to do with alignment.

>> IMO -- it screws things up when viewed with any other tab size (and why
>> else have tabs in the first place?).
> 
> What do you mean by "other tab size'? See Linux kernel coding style,
> Chapter 1: Indentation:
> 
> 	Tabs are 8 characters, and thus indentations are also 8
> 	characters.
> 
> Tabs are 8 characters. Full stop.

Yes, 8 is the "official" tab size for the Linux and U-Boot projects, for 
purposes of line length limits, etc.

That doesn't mean we should go out of our way to screw up alignment when 
a different size is used, when it's so easy to avoid.  What's the point 
of using TAB as a crappy compression scheme, rather than giving it 
semantic meaning as the block indentation level?

-Scott