* Benoit Parrot <bpar...@ti.com> [171013 11:06]:
> Tony Lindgren <t...@atomide.com> wrote on Fri [2017-Oct-13 10:05:13 -0700]:
> > * Benoit Parrot <bpar...@ti.com> [171012 12:28]:
> > > +static struct omap_hwmod_class_sysconfig dra7xx_vpe_sysc = {
> > > + .sysc_offs = 0x0010,
> > > + .sysc_flags = (SYSC_HAS_MIDLEMODE | SYSC_HAS_SIDLEMODE),
> > > + .idlemodes = (SIDLE_FORCE | SIDLE_NO | SIDLE_SMART |
> > > + MSTANDBY_FORCE | MSTANDBY_NO |
> > > + MSTANDBY_SMART),
> > > + .sysc_fields = &omap_hwmod_sysc_type2,
> > > +};
> >
> > I think checkpatch.pl --strict would complain about unnecessary
> > parentheses, might as well check the whole series while at it.
>
> I actually ran the whole series through "checkpatch.pl --strict"
> before posting. And other then the usual MAINTAINER file needing
> update warning for the binding patch it no other warning or error.
>
> Based on the rest of the file I believe the parentheses around those
> flags are at least consistent.
OK fine thanks for checking.
> Now, would the .rev_offs comment also apply here?
I don't think it has it, you might want to dump out the value
at offset 0 and see if it contains anything.
Regards,
Tony
