On 4/11/22 04:23, Thomas Huth wrote:
On 11/04/2022 08.57, Bin Meng wrote:
On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 2:45 PM Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> wrote:
On 08/04/2022 21.19, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
On 4/6/22 07:08, Bin Meng wrote:
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 10:36 PM Guo Zhi <qtxuning1...@sjtu.edu.cn> wrote:
There are still some files in the QEMU PPC code base that use TABs for
indentation instead of using spaces.
The TABs should be replaced so that we have a consistent coding style.
If this patch is applied, issue:
https://gitlab.com/qemu-project/qemu/-/issues/374
can be closed.
Please add the following tag in the commit:
Resolves: https://gitlab.com/qemu-project/qemu/-/issues/374
This will make Gitlab automatically close the issue when the patch is accepted.
Signed-off-by: Guo Zhi <qtxuning1...@sjtu.edu.cn>
---
hw/core/uboot_image.h | 185 ++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
hw/ppc/ppc440_bamboo.c | 6 +-
hw/ppc/spapr_rtas.c | 18 ++--
include/hw/ppc/ppc.h | 10 +--
4 files changed, 109 insertions(+), 110 deletions(-)
diff --git a/hw/core/uboot_image.h b/hw/core/uboot_image.h
uboot_image.h was taken from the U-Boot source, I believe it should be
kept as it is.
(CCing Thomas since het explictly listed hw/core/uboot_image.h in the bug)
I am not sure about keeping this file as is.
Seems like uboot_image.h has originally been taken from U-Boot's
include/image.h file ... but the two files are completely out of sync
nowadays, e.g. U-Boot switched to enums instead of #defines at one point in
time. So I think it does not make much sense to keep the TABs in here, and
I'd rather like to see them replaced with spaces indeed.
This file has been sync'ed recently.
See
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/qemu-devel/patch/20220324134812.541274-1-bmeng...@gmail.com/
Oh, ok, thanks, good to know. So we should maybe really rather drop the
uboot_image.h from the whitespace cleanup here, indeed (and rather add a
comment to the header file instead that this is a file that is sync'ed with
U-Boot and thus does not follow the QEMU coding conventions?)
Agree. I just updated the gitlab issue description to remove the reference to
this file.
Guo Zhi, can you please send another version of this patch with the updated
commit message and not touching uboot_image.h?
Thanks,
Daniel
Anyway, seems like that u-boot sync patch felt through the cracks, likely since
it was not quite clear which tree it should go through ... ARM? PPC? RISC-V?
Thomas
