[Openocd-development] [PATCH 04/12] at91rm9200: use register_commands()
Use register_commands() with command registration array.
---
This module was broken by previous changes, but no one has complained.
Are there still users for this modules?
Signed-off-by: Zachary T Welch z...@superlucidity.net
---
src/jtag/at91rm9200.c | 15 ---
1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/jtag/at91rm9200.c b/src/jtag/at91rm9200.c
index 024dd6d..34bcd60 100644
--- a/src/jtag/at91rm9200.c
+++ b/src/jtag/at91rm9200.c
@@ -200,11 +200,20 @@ static int at91rm9200_handle_device_command(struct
command_context *cmd_ctx, cha
return ERROR_OK;
}
+static const struct command_registration at91rm9200_command_handlers[] = {
+ {
+ .name = at91rm9200_device,
+ .handler = at91rm9200_handle_device_command,
+ .mode = COMMAND_CONFIG,
+ .help = query armjtagew info,
+ },
+ };
+
static int at91rm9200_register_commands(struct command_context *cmd_ctx)
{
- COMMAND_REGISTER(cmd_ctx, NULL, at91rm9200_device,
at91rm9200_handle_device_command,
- COMMAND_CONFIG, NULL);
- return ERROR_OK;
+ return register_commands(cmd_ctx, NULL,
+ ARRAY_SIZE(at91rm9200_command_handlers),
+ at91rm9200_command_handlers);
}
static int at91rm9200_init(void)
--
1.6.4.4
___
Openocd-development mailing list
Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
Re: [Openocd-development] [PATCH 04/12] at91rm9200: use register_commands()
On Saturday 21 November 2009, Zachary T Welch wrote:
+static const struct command_registration at91rm9200_command_handlers[] = {
+ {
+ .name = at91rm9200_device,
+ .handler = at91rm9200_handle_device_command,
+ .mode = COMMAND_CONFIG,
+ .help = query armjtagew info,
+ },
+ };
Could we get one less level of indent throughout?
___
Openocd-development mailing list
Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
Re: [Openocd-development] [PATCH 04/12] at91rm9200: use register_commands()
On Sat, 2009-11-21 at 16:24 -0700, David Brownell wrote:
On Saturday 21 November 2009, Zachary T Welch wrote:
+static const struct command_registration at91rm9200_command_handlers[] = {
+ {
+ .name = at91rm9200_device,
+ .handler = at91rm9200_handle_device_command,
+ .mode = COMMAND_CONFIG,
+ .help = query armjtagew info,
+ },
+ };
Could we get one less level of indent throughout?
There a couple of arguments for using this style at the top-level:
- It's consistent with the other indenting. The statement has not been
completed, so the code should not return to the original tab-stop.
- It generally fits fine with cols=80, even at tab=8. I still use tab=4
as the final rule, where one level is barely noticeable.
It would be painful to retouch all of these for this issue alone, but I
suppose that I should have expected you to raise this particular point.
Cheers,
Zach
___
Openocd-development mailing list
Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
Re: [Openocd-development] [PATCH 04/12] at91rm9200: use register_commands()
On Saturday 21 November 2009, Zach Welch wrote: Could we get one less level of indent throughout? There a couple of arguments for using this style at the top-level: - It's consistent with the other indenting. The statement has not been completed, so the code should not return to the original tab-stop. It's *NOT* consistent, since the first level of indent is double-sized. Though ... I'm also used to having *no* indent for new members of array structs; it's not as if there's any more structure to highlight. Which is why having *TWO* indents is particularly annoying... even one is superfluous. I'd not object to *two* less levels of intent. But at the least, be consistent about not *starting* indents with a double serving. ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
