On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Hiroshi DOYU <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: ext Felipe Contreras <[email protected]>
>> + if (false);
>
> nitpcik:
> The above may look better as below:
>
> if (false)
> ;
>
> "checkpatch.pl" also doesn't complain.
Personally I think it looks weird and it's a checkpatch bug, but fine by me.
>> +#if defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP3430)
>> + else if (cpu_is_omap3430()) {
>> list = omap3_mboxes;
>>
>> list[0]->irq = platform_get_irq_byname(pdev, "dsp");
>> }
>> +#endif
>> #if defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP2420)
>> else if (cpu_is_omap2420()) {
>> list = omap2_mboxes;
>> @@ -407,12 +415,14 @@ static int __devinit omap2_mbox_probe(struct
>> platform_device *pdev)
>> list[1]->irq = platform_get_irq_byname(pdev, "iva");
>> }
>> #endif
>> +#if defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP4)
>> else if (cpu_is_omap44xx()) {
>> list = omap4_mboxes;
>>
>> list[0]->irq = list[1]->irq =
>> platform_get_irq_byname(pdev, "mbox");
>
> For checkpatch.pl,
>
> list[0]->irq =
> platform_get_irq_byname(pdev, "mbox");
> list[1]->irq = list[0]->irq;
I don't see checkpatch (0.30) complaining about that.
Cheers.
--
Felipe Contreras
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
