On Friday, August 14, 2015 at 03:44:41 AM, vikas wrote: > Hi, > > On 08/13/2015 06:43 PM, Marek Vasut wrote: > > On Friday, August 14, 2015 at 03:24:10 AM, vikas wrote: > >> Hi Marek, > > > > Hi, > > > >> On 08/13/2015 10:35 AM, Marek Vasut wrote: > >>> On Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 05:50:18 PM, vikasm wrote: > >>>> Hi Marek, > >>> > >>> Hi! > >>> > >>>> On 08/12/2015 07:07 PM, Marek Vasut wrote: > >>>>> On Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 04:27:29 AM, Vikas Manocha wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Commit message is missing. > >>>> > >>>> Actually subject of the mail was sufficient, this patch just moves the > >>>> register configuration in init. > >>> > >>> NAK, fix the commit message. > >>> > >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Vikas Manocha <vikas.mano...@st.com> > >>>>>> --- > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Changes in v2: Rebased to master > >>>>>> > >>>>>> drivers/spi/cadence_qspi_apb.c | 9 ++------- > >>>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/spi/cadence_qspi_apb.c > >>>>>> b/drivers/spi/cadence_qspi_apb.c index d053407..1ae7edf 100644 > >>>>>> --- a/drivers/spi/cadence_qspi_apb.c > >>>>>> +++ b/drivers/spi/cadence_qspi_apb.c > >>>>>> @@ -534,6 +534,8 @@ void cadence_qspi_apb_controller_init(struct > >>>>>> cadence_spi_platdata *plat) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> /* Indirect mode configurations */ > >>>>>> writel((plat->sram_size/2), plat->regbase + > >>>>>> CQSPI_REG_SRAMPARTITION); > >>>>>> > >>>>>> + writel(((u32)plat->ahbbase & CQSPI_INDIRECTTRIGGER_ADDR_MASK), > >>>>> > >>>>> You can drop the parenthesis around the first argument, they're > >>>>> useless. Also, the indent of the second arg should be fixed, I > >>>>> believe checkpatch might even complain about it. > >> > >> ok for first comment about parenthesis but indent of second arg seems > >> ok. yes, checkpatch warning was "CHECK: Alignment should match open > >> parenthesis" but i ignored it. To respect 80 column, i had to move > >> second arg in another line. Am i missing something ? > > > > Just don't ignore the checkpatch warnings next time please ;-) > > This CHECK message is gonna come in any case if i move second argument in > second line to restrict 80 column rule. My understanding is to ignore this > CHECK message.
I'll let others to present their opinion, I stop here. Best regards, Marek Vasut _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
