From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Tom <Tom.Rix@windriver.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 07:07:30 -0600
Subject: [U-Boot] TI:OMAP: [PATCH 1/7] OMAP3 Beagle Update revision
	detection
In-Reply-To: <a8ca84ad1001180351j4b812c3er96358d242ad02863@mail.gmail.com>
References: <a8ca84ad1001121101l60ae84b5lb7d4802ba0ca6a3e@mail.gmail.com>	
	<4B525683.8000400@windriver.com>
	<a8ca84ad1001180351j4b812c3er96358d242ad02863@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B545D12.7060908@windriver.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

Khasim Syed Mohammed wrote:
> Hi Tom,
> 
> On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 5:44 AM, Tom <Tom.Rix@windriver.com> wrote:
>> Khasim Syed Mohammed wrote:
>>> From 15fbe5ff9ee2fd2f8da4c16805d6c7ccf7244bae Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>> From: Syed Mohammed Khasim <khasim@ti.com>
>>> Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 20:13:47 +0530
>>> Subject: [PATCH] OMAP3 Beagle Update revision detection
>>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>        MUX_BEAGLE();
>>>
>>> -       if (beagle_revision_c) {
>>> +       if (beagle_revision != REVISION_AXBX)
>>>                MUX_BEAGLE_C();
>>> -       }
>> Because MUX_BEAGLE_C is a multiline macro,
>> it would be good to keep the '{ }'
>>
> I had this before, but it resulted in Checkpatch error, do you still
> want me to keep { } ?,
> 

Yes.
Checkpatch is not smart enough to figure out if it is function or
a macro.

Because macros are better behaved in a '{ }', block I prefer that.

Tom