[U-Boot] Patch sets coming

[York Sun <yorksun@freescale.com>]

On 03/22/2013 03:45 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 02:43:28PM -0700, York Sun wrote:
>> 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.
>>>
>> How do I get rid of the "line over 80 characters" warning by fixing
>> "quoted string split across lines"?
>>
>> checkpatch log shows
>>
>>>     checkpatch: check for quoted strings broken across lines
>>>     
>>>     checkpatch already makes an exception to the 80-column rule for quoted
>>>     strings, and Documentation/CodingStyle recommends not splitting quoted
>>>     strings across lines, because it breaks the ability to grep for the
>>>     string.  Rather than just permitting this, actively warn about quoted
>>>     strings split across lines.
>>
>> How do I activate the exception for quoted strings?
> 
> Well, it has exceptions for print function within the kernel.  The
> second patch I linked added an exception for 'debug' which the kernel
> doesn't use (anymore).
> 

So instead of a printk, we need a print for u-boot. Is that going to happen?

York