On 02/26/2014 05:04 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 07:30 -0500, Tom Rini wrote:
>> The only intentional differences we have today are adding debug/printf
>> to the list of log functions
>
> That seems fine and trivial to keep current.
Agreed,
>> and pointing people at boards.cfg
On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 07:30 -0500, Tom Rini wrote:
> The only intentional differences we have today are adding debug/printf
> to the list of log functions
That seems fine and trivial to keep current.
> and pointing people at boards.cfg not
> CHECKPATCH in MAINTAINERS,
That seems wrong.
The idea
On 02/25/2014 12:23 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 17:43 -0500, Tom Rini wrote:
>> My perl is quite limited, so however much effort you're interested in
>> putting in here is greatly appreciated (even if it's pointing out
>> something else already in the script to copy and modify).
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 05:04:57PM -0500, Tom Rini wrote:
> On 02/24/2014 05:02 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 16:52 -0500, Tom Rini wrote:
> >> I've been lead to
> >> believe that most cases now people should be using regmap instead, which
> >> just leaves the case of having to m
On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 17:43 -0500, Tom Rini wrote:
> My perl is quite limited, so however much effort you're interested in
> putting in here is greatly appreciated (even if it's pointing out
> something else already in the script to copy and modify). We already
> ship a .checkpatch.conf so having
On 02/24/2014 05:31 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 17:20 -0500, Tom Rini wrote:
>> On 02/24/2014 05:08 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 17:04 -0500, Tom Rini wrote:
I've got this modified to a CHK and only for non-file usage. Anything
else we want to talk
On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 17:20 -0500, Tom Rini wrote:
> On 02/24/2014 05:08 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 17:04 -0500, Tom Rini wrote:
> >> I've got this modified to a CHK and only for non-file usage. Anything
> >> else we want to talk about before I repost?
> >
> > Probably not,
On 02/24/2014 05:08 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 17:04 -0500, Tom Rini wrote:
>> I've got this modified to a CHK and only for non-file usage. Anything
>> else we want to talk about before I repost?
>
> Probably not, but I'm still not convinced it's useful.
>
> Have you found a
On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 17:04 -0500, Tom Rini wrote:
> I've got this modified to a CHK and only for non-file usage. Anything
> else we want to talk about before I repost?
Probably not, but I'm still not convinced it's useful.
Have you found a case where it's currently specified
but not useful?
--
On 02/24/2014 05:02 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 16:52 -0500, Tom Rini wrote:
>> I've been lead to
>> believe that most cases now people should be using regmap instead, which
>> just leaves the case of having to match on-disk formats or similar cases
>> I believe as the things tha
On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 16:52 -0500, Tom Rini wrote:
> I've been lead to
> believe that most cases now people should be using regmap instead, which
> just leaves the case of having to match on-disk formats or similar cases
> I believe as the things that must stay __packed.
__packed is also necessary
On 02/24/2014 04:28 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 16:11 -0500, Tom Rini wrote:
>> On 02/24/2014 04:00 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 15:38 -0500, Tom Rini wrote:
While there are valid reasons to use __packed, often the answer is that
you should be doing
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 03:38:16PM -0500, Tom Rini wrote:
> While there are valid reasons to use __packed, often the answer is that
> you should be doing something else here instead.
>
> Cc: Andrew Morton
> Cc: Joe Perches
> Cc: Josh Triplett
> Signed-off-by: Tom Rini
> ---
> scripts/checkpat
On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 16:11 -0500, Tom Rini wrote:
> On 02/24/2014 04:00 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 15:38 -0500, Tom Rini wrote:
> >> While there are valid reasons to use __packed, often the answer is that
> >> you should be doing something else here instead.
[]
> > How often
On 02/24/2014 04:00 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 15:38 -0500, Tom Rini wrote:
>> While there are valid reasons to use __packed, often the answer is that
>> you should be doing something else here instead.
> []
>> diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> []
>> @
On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 15:38 -0500, Tom Rini wrote:
> While there are valid reasons to use __packed, often the answer is that
> you should be doing something else here instead.
[]
> diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
[]
> @@ -4010,6 +4010,11 @@ sub process {
>
While there are valid reasons to use __packed, often the answer is that
you should be doing something else here instead.
Cc: Andrew Morton
Cc: Joe Perches
Cc: Josh Triplett
Signed-off-by: Tom Rini
---
scripts/checkpatch.pl |5 +
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
diff --git a/scripts/ch
17 matches
Mail list logo
