Hi Marek,
2017-09-12 19:23 GMT+09:00 Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de>:
> On 09/12/2017 10:23 AM, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
>> GCC 7.1 warns:
>> duplicate ‘const’ declaration specifier [-Wduplicate-decl-specifier]
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masah...@socionext.com>
>> ---
>>
>> arch/arm/mach-socfpga/misc_gen5.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-socfpga/misc_gen5.c
>> b/arch/arm/mach-socfpga/misc_gen5.c
>> index 2f1da74..91ddb79 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-socfpga/misc_gen5.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-socfpga/misc_gen5.c
>> @@ -144,7 +144,7 @@ static const struct {
> ^ Shouldn't you fix it here instead ?
>
>> const u16 pn;
>> const char *name;
>> const char *var;
>> -} const socfpga_fpga_model[] = {
>> +} socfpga_fpga_model[] = {
>> /* Cyclone V E */
>> { 0x2b15, "Cyclone V, E/A2", "cv_e_a2" },
>> { 0x2b05, "Cyclone V, E/A4", "cv_e_a4" },
>>
>
"const" and the variable type is interchangeable,
so this comes down to a personal preference after all,
but think about simpler cases.
[1]
const int x = 1;
const struct pinctrl_ops *ops;
[2]
int const x = 1;
struct pinctrl_ops const *ops;
Both [1] and [2] are correct and equivalent,
but my preference is [1] (and I hope you too).
In my experience in Linux / U-Boot,
source code mostly looks like [1]
(of course, [2] is mixed here and there)
I prefer style [1] ("const" before variable type),
so I removed the second "const" in this patch.
Ideally, the following might be more readable:
struct fpga_model {
const u16 pn;
const char *name;
const char *var;
};
static const struct fpga_model socfpga_fpga_model[] = {
...
};
But, I will not do
static struct fpga_model const socfpga_fpga_model[] = {
...
};
--
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
