On Thu, Jul 02, 2026 at 08:07:08AM -0600, Tom Rini wrote: > On Thu, Jul 02, 2026 at 10:24:28AM +0100, Jiaxun Yang wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 1 Jul 2026, at 6:49 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 01, 2026 at 11:17:59AM +0000, Yao Zi wrote: > > > > > >> From: Jiaxun Yang <[email protected]> > > >> > > >> Add some common library routines for the architecture. > > >> > > >> Signed-off-by: Jiaxun Yang <[email protected]> > > >> Signed-off-by: Yao Zi <[email protected]> > > > [snip] > > >> +#define CACHE_MAX_LEVEL 3 > > >> +#define CACHE_MAX_INDEX 6 > > >> +#define CACHE_OP GENMASK(4, 3) > > >> +#define CACHE_INDEX_INVWB 0x1 > > >> +#define CACHE_HIT_INVWB 0x2 > > >> +#define CACHE_INDEX GENMASK(2, 0) > > > > > > I was expecting checkpatch.pl to catch the double space here, but it > > > didn't. It did warn about a few other things in macros, which should be > > > checked out at least. And that comment applies for the whole series, > > > along with a manual check for other spacing issues, thanks! > > > > Those style issues are mostly copied over Linux kernel counterparts, should > > we leave them as is to ease kernel rebasing effort, or fix them for > > consistency > > with rest of the U-Boot? > > Ah, OK then yes, we can leave those if it's a match-up with the kernel, > but should make note of that in the commit message when applicable, not > just the cover letter. It will make finding that reasoning easier in the > future.
Yes, most style issues are in files copied from the kernel side, before sending v2, I do have a brief look and fix some of them (for example, mixed TAB/space and multiple empty lines). But the diff quoted here isn't copied from kernel side, it's written by myself. I consider the double space meaningful since these two macros are two possible values of CACHE_OP, and found similar styles in tools/zynqmqimage.h (PART_ATTR_*) and kernel side, do you think it's acceptable? > -- > Tom Regards, Yao Zi
