On 17/4/24 08:24, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
Hello,
On 4/16/24 20:47, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
We are going to modify these lines, fix their style
in order to avoid checkpatch.pl warnings:
WARNING: line over 80 characters
Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@linaro.org>
---
include/hw/i2c/i2c.h | 11 ++-
include/hw/nvram/eeprom_at24c.h | 6 +-
hw/arm/aspeed.c | 140 +++++++++++++++++++-------------
hw/nvram/eeprom_at24c.c | 6 +-
4 files changed, 98 insertions(+), 65 deletions(-)
- i2c_slave_create_simple(aspeed_i2c_get_bus(&soc->i2c, 3),
"dps310", 0x76);
- i2c_slave_create_simple(aspeed_i2c_get_bus(&soc->i2c, 3),
"max31785", 0x52);
- i2c_slave_create_simple(aspeed_i2c_get_bus(&soc->i2c, 4),
"tmp423", 0x4c);
- i2c_slave_create_simple(aspeed_i2c_get_bus(&soc->i2c, 5),
"tmp423", 0x4c);
+ i2c_slave_create_simple(aspeed_i2c_get_bus(&soc->i2c, 3),
+ "dps310", 0x76);
+ i2c_slave_create_simple(aspeed_i2c_get_bus(&soc->i2c, 3),
+ "max31785", 0x52);
+ i2c_slave_create_simple(aspeed_i2c_get_bus(&soc->i2c, 4),
+ "tmp423", 0x4c);
+ i2c_slave_create_simple(aspeed_i2c_get_bus(&soc->i2c, 5),
+ "tmp423", 0x4c);
/* The Witherspoon expects a TMP275 but a TMP105 is compatible */
- i2c_slave_create_simple(aspeed_i2c_get_bus(&soc->i2c, 9),
TYPE_TMP105,
- 0x4a);
+ i2c_slave_create_simple(aspeed_i2c_get_bus(&soc->i2c, 9),
+ TYPE_TMP105, 0x4a);
/* The witherspoon board expects Epson RX8900 I2C RTC but a
ds1338 is
* good enough */
- i2c_slave_create_simple(aspeed_i2c_get_bus(&soc->i2c, 11),
"ds1338", 0x32);
+ i2c_slave_create_simple(aspeed_i2c_get_bus(&soc->i2c, 11),
+ "ds1338", 0x32);
If the definitions were on a single line, they would be more
readable IMHO. So I would do the opposit change ...
An alternate solution could be to define an array of devices
at the machine class level, something like
struct i2c_device [
const char *type;
uint8_t bus;
uint8_t addr;
} devices[] = { ... };
I agree this would be better, but this should be done separately
of this series. For now I propose not modifying hw/arm/aspeed.c
in this patch, and ignoring the checkpatch errors in the next
patch. What do you think?
