[U-Boot] [PATCH-OMAP3] OMAP3: Use I2C file coding style

[U-Boot] [PATCH-OMAP3] OMAP3: Use I2C file coding style

[dirk.behme at googlemail.com]

Subject: [PATCH-OMAP3] OMAP3: Use I2C file coding style

From: Dirk Behme <dirk.behme@gmail.com>

Use file coding style for inx/outx instead of global coding style.

Signed-off-by: Dirk Behme <dirk.behme@gmail.com>

---

Note: There was an additional review comment about this file:

-- cut --
> +#define inb(a) __raw_readb(a)
> +#define outb(a, v) __raw_writeb(a, v)
>  #define inw(a) __raw_readw(a)
>  #define outw(a,v) __raw_writew(a,v)

This 4 macro is supposed to be defined in io.h
-- cut --

In ARM's io.h there are already inx/outx macros, but with different syntax. The correct fix for omap24xx_i2c.c will be to replace all inx/outx by readx/writex macros and remove above defines. But this can't be done on OMAP3 branch, as it would conflict with "no general coding style clean up in OMAP3 patches, only OMAP3 related changes, please". Thus, we have to do code style changes for this file at mainline once OMAP3 is merged. Until then we have to stay with consistent local style.

 drivers/i2c/omap24xx_i2c.c |   10 +++++-----
 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

Index: u-boot-arm/drivers/i2c/omap24xx_i2c.c
===================================================================
--- u-boot-arm.orig/drivers/i2c/omap24xx_i2c.c
+++ u-boot-arm/drivers/i2c/omap24xx_i2c.c
@@ -115,7 +115,7 @@ static int i2c_read_byte (u8 devaddr, u8
 		status = wait_for_pin ();
 		if (status & I2C_STAT_RRDY) {
 #if defined(CONFIG_OMAP243X) || defined(CONFIG_OMAP34XX)
-			*value = inb(I2C_DATA);
+			*value = inb (I2C_DATA);
 #else
 			*value = inw (I2C_DATA);
 #endif
@@ -161,13 +161,13 @@ static int i2c_write_byte (u8 devaddr, u
 	if (status & I2C_STAT_XRDY) {
 #if defined(CONFIG_OMAP243X) || defined(CONFIG_OMAP34XX)
 		/* send out 1 byte */
-		outb(regoffset, I2C_DATA);
-		outw(I2C_STAT_XRDY, I2C_STAT);
+		outb (regoffset, I2C_DATA);
+		outw (I2C_STAT_XRDY, I2C_STAT);
 		status = wait_for_pin();
 		if ((status & I2C_STAT_XRDY)) {
 			/* send out next 1 byte */
-			outb(value, I2C_DATA);
-			outw(I2C_STAT_XRDY, I2C_STAT);
+			outb (value, I2C_DATA);
+			outw (I2C_STAT_XRDY, I2C_STAT);
 		} else {
 			i2c_error = 1;
 		}

[U-Boot] [PATCH-OMAP3] OMAP3: Use I2C file coding style

[Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD]

On 17:32 Tue 04 Nov     , dirk.behme at googlemail.com wrote:
> Subject: [PATCH-OMAP3] OMAP3: Use I2C file coding style
> 
> From: Dirk Behme <dirk.behme@gmail.com>
> 
> Use file coding style for inx/outx instead of global coding style.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dirk Behme <dirk.behme@gmail.com>
> 
> ---
> 
> Note: There was an additional review comment about this file:
> 
> -- cut --
> > +#define inb(a) __raw_readb(a)
> > +#define outb(a, v) __raw_writeb(a, v)
> >  #define inw(a) __raw_readw(a)
> >  #define outw(a,v) __raw_writew(a,v)
> 
> This 4 macro is supposed to be defined in io.h
> -- cut --
> 
> In ARM's io.h there are already inx/outx macros, but with different syntax. The correct fix for omap24xx_i2c.c will be to replace all inx/outx by readx/writex macros and remove above defines. But this can't be done on OMAP3 branch, as it would conflict with "no general coding style clean up in OMAP3 patches, only OMAP3 related changes, please". Thus, we have to do code style changes for this file at mainline once OMAP3 is merged. Until then we have to stay with consistent local style.

I desagree,

This fix is supposed to be done before appling of the OMAP3 patch set not
after.

please do not add code which need to fix just after.

NB : applied to the omap3 branch

Best Regards,
J.

[U-Boot] [PATCH-OMAP3] OMAP3: Use I2C file coding style

[Dirk Behme]

Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
> On 17:32 Tue 04 Nov     , dirk.behme at googlemail.com wrote:
> 
>>Subject: [PATCH-OMAP3] OMAP3: Use I2C file coding style
>>
>>From: Dirk Behme <dirk.behme@gmail.com>
>>
>>Use file coding style for inx/outx instead of global coding style.
>>
>>Signed-off-by: Dirk Behme <dirk.behme@gmail.com>
>>
>>---
>>
>>Note: There was an additional review comment about this file:
>>
>>-- cut --
>>
>>>+#define inb(a) __raw_readb(a)
>>>+#define outb(a, v) __raw_writeb(a, v)
>>> #define inw(a) __raw_readw(a)
>>> #define outw(a,v) __raw_writew(a,v)
>>
>>This 4 macro is supposed to be defined in io.h
>>-- cut --
>>
>>In ARM's io.h there are already inx/outx macros, but with different syntax. The correct fix for omap24xx_i2c.c will be to replace all inx/outx by readx/writex macros and remove above defines. But this can't be done on OMAP3 branch, as it would conflict with "no general coding style clean up in OMAP3 patches, only OMAP3 related changes, please". Thus, we have to do code style changes for this file at mainline once OMAP3 is merged. Until then we have to stay with consistent local style.
> 
> 
> I desagree,
> 
> This fix is supposed to be done before appling of the OMAP3 patch set not
> after.
> 
> please do not add code which need to fix just after.

Sorry if I misunderstand something here, but it seems to me that this 
conflicts with

http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2008-November/042975.html

"It is more important to use a consistent style in a single source 
file, indeed."

?

Additionally, do you (you == all maintainers and reviewers at this 
list) accecpt/want to have general (non-OMAP3) coding style clean up 
in OMAP3 patch set? If yes, once we send the resulting OMAP3 patch 
series from u-boot-arm/omap3 for final merge to U-Boot list again, we 
will get

http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2008-October/042464.html

again. It was my understanding not to do this.

It would be really nice if you could give some more details how you 
like to have things done right (and not only a more or less limited 
"NACK" ;) ). I will do this then, but please give me some clear 
direction to go.

Many thanks for your help

Dirk

[U-Boot] [PATCH-OMAP3] OMAP3: Use I2C file coding style

[Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD]

On 08:38 Sun 09 Nov     , Dirk Behme wrote:
> Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
>> On 17:32 Tue 04 Nov     , dirk.behme at googlemail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Subject: [PATCH-OMAP3] OMAP3: Use I2C file coding style
>>>
>>> From: Dirk Behme <dirk.behme@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> Use file coding style for inx/outx instead of global coding style.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Dirk Behme <dirk.behme@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Note: There was an additional review comment about this file:
>>>
>>> -- cut --
>>>
>>>> +#define inb(a) __raw_readb(a)
>>>> +#define outb(a, v) __raw_writeb(a, v)
>>>> #define inw(a) __raw_readw(a)
>>>> #define outw(a,v) __raw_writew(a,v)
>>>
>>> This 4 macro is supposed to be defined in io.h
>>> -- cut --
>>>
>>> In ARM's io.h there are already inx/outx macros, but with different syntax. The correct fix for omap24xx_i2c.c will be to replace all inx/outx by readx/writex macros and remove above defines. But this can't be done on OMAP3 branch, as it would conflict with "no general coding style clean up in OMAP3 patches, only OMAP3 related changes, please". Thus, we have to do code style changes for this file at mainline once OMAP3 is merged. Until then we have to stay with consistent local style.
>>
>>
>> I desagree,
>>
>> This fix is supposed to be done before appling of the OMAP3 patch set not
>> after.
>>
>> please do not add code which need to fix just after.
>
> Sorry if I misunderstand something here, but it seems to me that this  
> conflicts with
>
> http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2008-November/042975.html
>
> "It is more important to use a consistent style in a single source file, 
> indeed."
>
> ?

As I said this fix need be done on the master branch before merge of the omap3
branch.

>
> Additionally, do you (you == all maintainers and reviewers at this list) 
> accecpt/want to have general (non-OMAP3) coding style clean up in OMAP3 
> patch set? If yes, once we send the resulting OMAP3 patch series from 
> u-boot-arm/omap3 for final merge to U-Boot list again, we will get

you are right no general fix in the omap3 branch only omap fix.

Best Regards,
J.