From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: York Sun Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 14:33:59 -0700 Subject: [U-Boot] Patch sets coming In-Reply-To: <20130322212507.GM26945@bill-the-cat> References: <1363970293-21228-1-git-send-email-yorksun@freescale.com> <20130322204502.39F332014CE@gemini.denx.de> <514CC7B1.2070706@freescale.com> <20130322211703.2D6342014CE@gemini.denx.de> <20130322212507.GM26945@bill-the-cat> Message-ID: <514CCE47.3060408@freescale.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On 03/22/2013 02:25 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 10:17:03PM +0100, Wolfgang Denk wrote: >> Dear York Sun, >> >> In message <514CC7B1.2070706@freescale.com> you wrote: >>> >>> Will fix. I often found unsure about some warnings, not knowing if >>> u-boot follow exactly the same standard. Beside, some old patches may >>> pass checkpatch then but fails today. >> >> Well, you are supposed to run checkpatch _today_, before posting, and >> fix such issues. >> >> There may be a few cases where you intentionally ignore such fixes >> (like lines over 80 characters in tables of pin-muxc initializations, >> where wrapping the code would make it even worse to read), but such >> exceptions and your reasoning should be metioned in the comments. > > To be clear, I know of 2 cases checkpatch.pl gets wrong today and I have > patches for both to push to correct this: > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/228173/ > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/227717/ > > Aside from that, it's once again checkpatch is correct unless obviously > wrong (first patch for example) and we should fix .checkpatch.conf so it > stops being wrong. > Thanks, Tom. I was using checkpatch from linux. Will use tools/checkpatch.pl from now on. York