Hi Guenter, On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 08:37:23PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On 09/21/2013 07:00 AM, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > [ ... ] > > >>+ /* assert cpu core reset */ > >>+ writel(0, sunxi7i_cc_base + CPUX_RESET_CTL(cpu)); > >>+ /* L1RSTDISABLE hold low */ > >>+ pwr_reg = readl(sunxi7i_cc_base + AW_CPUCFG_GENCTL); > >>+ pwr_reg &= ~(1<<cpu); > >>+ writel(pwr_reg, sunxi7i_cc_base + AW_CPUCFG_GENCTL); > >>+ /* DBGPWRDUP hold low */ > >>+ pwr_reg = readl(sunxi7i_cc_base + AW_CPUCFG_DBGCTL1); > >>+ pwr_reg &= ~(1<<cpu); > > > >Use BIT(cpu) here. And you should run scripts/checkpatch.pl on your > >patches before sending them. > > > > For the record: > > $ scripts/checkpatch.pl --strict allwinner.patch > total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 checks, 527 lines checked > > allwinner.patch has no obvious style problems and is ready for submission. > > This is on top of "v3.12-rc1-336-gd8524ae". > > checkpatch.pl does not complain as long as the number of spaces before > and after an operator is the same. There is a patch pending to change > this with the --strict option, but it will still not complain in 'normal' > operation.
Hmmm, ok. Somehow, I was convinced that it was triggering a warning. Thanks for the heads up :) Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
