[PATCH v3 1/2] ARM: s3c24xx: formatting cleanup in mach-mini2440.c

[PATCH v3 1/2] ARM: s3c24xx: formatting cleanup in mach-mini2440.c

[Cedric Roux]

Running:
    scripts/checkpatch.pl -f arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c
revealed several errors and warnings.

They were all removed, except one which is an #if 0 around the declaration
of a gpio pin. This needs some more investigation and I prefer to let it
here. This is not some dead code.

'printk' was replaced by 'pr_info'.

Signed-off-by: Cedric Roux <sed@free.fr>
---
 arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c | 80 ++++++++++++++-------------
 1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c b/arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c
index f9fc1f8d2b28..4a0bf6abba8c 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c
@@ -64,8 +64,8 @@ static struct map_desc mini2440_iodesc[] __initdata = {
 };
 
 #define UCON S3C2410_UCON_DEFAULT
-#define ULCON S3C2410_LCON_CS8 | S3C2410_LCON_PNONE | S3C2410_LCON_STOPB
-#define UFCON S3C2410_UFCON_RXTRIG8 | S3C2410_UFCON_FIFOMODE
+#define ULCON (S3C2410_LCON_CS8 | S3C2410_LCON_PNONE | S3C2410_LCON_STOPB)
+#define UFCON (S3C2410_UFCON_RXTRIG8 | S3C2410_UFCON_FIFOMODE)
 
 
 static struct s3c2410_uartcfg mini2440_uartcfgs[] __initdata = {
@@ -104,8 +104,8 @@ static struct s3c2410_udc_mach_info mini2440_udc_cfg __initdata = {
 /*
  * This macro simplifies the table bellow
  */
-#define _LCD_DECLARE(_clock,_xres,margin_left,margin_right,hsync, \
-			_yres,margin_top,margin_bottom,vsync, refresh) \
+#define _LCD_DECLARE(_clock, _xres, margin_left, margin_right, hsync, \
+			_yres, margin_top, margin_bottom, vsync, refresh) \
 	.width = _xres, \
 	.xres = _xres, \
 	.height = _yres, \
@@ -128,7 +128,7 @@ static struct s3c2410fb_display mini2440_lcd_cfg[] __initdata = {
 	[0] = {	/* mini2440 + 3.5" TFT + touchscreen */
 		_LCD_DECLARE(
 			7,			/* The 3.5 is quite fast */
-			240, 21, 38, 6, 	/* x timing */
+			240, 21, 38, 6,		/* x timing */
 			320, 4, 4, 2,		/* y timing */
 			60),			/* refresh rate */
 		.lcdcon5	= (S3C2410_LCDCON5_FRM565 |
@@ -140,7 +140,7 @@ static struct s3c2410fb_display mini2440_lcd_cfg[] __initdata = {
 	[1] = { /* mini2440 + 7" TFT + touchscreen */
 		_LCD_DECLARE(
 			10,			/* the 7" runs slower */
-			800, 40, 40, 48, 	/* x timing */
+			800, 40, 40, 48,	/* x timing */
 			480, 29, 3, 3,		/* y timing */
 			50),			/* refresh rate */
 		.lcdcon5	= (S3C2410_LCDCON5_FRM565 |
@@ -148,7 +148,7 @@ static struct s3c2410fb_display mini2440_lcd_cfg[] __initdata = {
 				   S3C2410_LCDCON5_INVVFRAME |
 				   S3C2410_LCDCON5_PWREN),
 	},
-	/* The VGA shield can outout at several resolutions. All share 
+	/* The VGA shield can outout at several resolutions. All share
 	 * the same timings, however, anything smaller than 1024x768
 	 * will only be displayed in the top left corner of a 1024x768
 	 * XGA output unless you add optional dip switches to the shield.
@@ -158,9 +158,10 @@ static struct s3c2410fb_display mini2440_lcd_cfg[] __initdata = {
 		_LCD_DECLARE(
 			10,
 			1024, 1, 2, 2,		/* y timing */
-			768, 200, 16, 16, 	/* x timing */
+			768, 200, 16, 16,	/* x timing */
 			24),	/* refresh rate, maximum stable,
-				 tested with the FPGA shield */
+				 * tested with the FPGA shield
+				 */
 		.lcdcon5	= (S3C2410_LCDCON5_FRM565 |
 				   S3C2410_LCDCON5_HWSWP),
 	},
@@ -196,7 +197,8 @@ static struct s3c2410fb_mach_info mini2440_fb_info __initdata = {
 
 	/* Enable VD[2..7], VD[10..15], VD[18..23] and VCLK, syncs, VDEN
 	 * and disable the pull down resistors on pins we are using for LCD
-	 * data. */
+	 * data.
+	 */
 
 	.gpcup		= (0xf << 1) | (0x3f << 10),
 
@@ -232,10 +234,10 @@ static struct s3c2410fb_mach_info mini2440_fb_info __initdata = {
 /* MMC/SD  */
 
 static struct s3c24xx_mci_pdata mini2440_mmc_cfg __initdata = {
-   .gpio_detect   = S3C2410_GPG(8),
-   .gpio_wprotect = S3C2410_GPH(8),
-   .set_power     = NULL,
-   .ocr_avail     = MMC_VDD_32_33|MMC_VDD_33_34,
+	.gpio_detect   = S3C2410_GPG(8),
+	.gpio_wprotect = S3C2410_GPH(8),
+	.set_power     = NULL,
+	.ocr_avail     = MMC_VDD_32_33|MMC_VDD_33_34,
 };
 
 /* NAND Flash on MINI2440 board */
@@ -254,7 +256,8 @@ static struct mtd_partition mini2440_default_nand_part[] __initdata = {
 	[2] = {
 		.name	= "kernel",
 		/* 5 megabytes, for a kernel with no modules
-		 * or a uImage with a ramdisk attached */
+		 * or a uImage with a ramdisk attached
+		 */
 		.size	= 0x00500000,
 		.offset	= SZ_256K + SZ_128K,
 	},
@@ -271,7 +274,7 @@ static struct s3c2410_nand_set mini2440_nand_sets[] __initdata = {
 		.nr_chips	= 1,
 		.nr_partitions	= ARRAY_SIZE(mini2440_default_nand_part),
 		.partitions	= mini2440_default_nand_part,
-		.flash_bbt 	= 1, /* we use u-boot to create a BBT */
+		.flash_bbt	= 1, /* we use u-boot to create a BBT */
 	},
 };
 
@@ -290,7 +293,7 @@ static struct s3c2410_platform_nand mini2440_nand_info __initdata = {
 static struct resource mini2440_dm9k_resource[] = {
 	[0] = DEFINE_RES_MEM(MACH_MINI2440_DM9K_BASE, 4),
 	[1] = DEFINE_RES_MEM(MACH_MINI2440_DM9K_BASE + 4, 4),
-	[2] = DEFINE_RES_NAMED(IRQ_EINT7, 1, NULL, IORESOURCE_IRQ \
+	[2] = DEFINE_RES_NAMED(IRQ_EINT7, 1, NULL, IORESOURCE_IRQ
 						| IORESOURCE_IRQ_HIGHEDGE),
 };
 
@@ -362,7 +365,8 @@ static struct gpio_keys_button mini2440_buttons[] = {
 	},
 #if 0
 	/* this pin is also known as TCLK1 and seems to already
-	 * marked as "in use" somehow in the kernel -- possibly wrongly */
+	 * marked as "in use" somehow in the kernel -- possibly wrongly
+	 */
 	{
 		.gpio		= S3C2410_GPG(11),	/* K6 */
 		.code		= KEY_F6,
@@ -564,7 +568,8 @@ static char mini2440_features_str[12] __initdata = "0tb";
 static int __init mini2440_features_setup(char *str)
 {
 	if (str)
-		strlcpy(mini2440_features_str, str, sizeof(mini2440_features_str));
+		strlcpy(mini2440_features_str, str,
+			sizeof(mini2440_features_str));
 	return 1;
 }
 
@@ -583,10 +588,10 @@ struct mini2440_features_t {
 };
 
 static void __init mini2440_parse_features(
-		struct mini2440_features_t * features,
-		const char * features_str )
+		struct mini2440_features_t *features,
+		const char *features_str)
 {
-	const char * fp = features_str;
+	const char *fp = features_str;
 
 	features->count = 0;
 	features->done = 0;
@@ -598,13 +603,14 @@ static void __init mini2440_parse_features(
 		switch (f) {
 		case '0'...'9':	/* tft screen */
 			if (features->done & FEATURE_SCREEN) {
-				printk(KERN_INFO "MINI2440: '%c' ignored, "
-					"screen type already set\n", f);
+				pr_info("MINI2440: '%c' ignored, screen type already set\n",
+					f);
 			} else {
 				int li = f - '0';
+
 				if (li >= ARRAY_SIZE(mini2440_lcd_cfg))
-					printk(KERN_INFO "MINI2440: "
-						"'%c' out of range LCD mode\n", f);
+					pr_info("MINI2440: '%c' out of range LCD mode\n",
+						f);
 				else {
 					features->optional[features->count++] =
 							&s3c_device_lcd;
@@ -615,8 +621,8 @@ static void __init mini2440_parse_features(
 			break;
 		case 'b':
 			if (features->done & FEATURE_BACKLIGHT)
-				printk(KERN_INFO "MINI2440: '%c' ignored, "
-					"backlight already set\n", f);
+				pr_info("MINI2440: '%c' ignored, backlight already set\n",
+					f);
 			else {
 				features->optional[features->count++] =
 						&mini2440_led_backlight;
@@ -624,13 +630,13 @@ static void __init mini2440_parse_features(
 			features->done |= FEATURE_BACKLIGHT;
 			break;
 		case 't':
-			printk(KERN_INFO "MINI2440: '%c' ignored, "
-				"touchscreen not compiled in\n", f);
+			pr_info("MINI2440: '%c' ignored, touchscreen not compiled in\n",
+				f);
 			break;
 		case 'c':
 			if (features->done & FEATURE_CAMERA)
-				printk(KERN_INFO "MINI2440: '%c' ignored, "
-					"camera already registered\n", f);
+				pr_info("MINI2440: '%c' ignored, camera already registered\n",
+					f);
 			else
 				features->optional[features->count++] =
 					&s3c_device_camif;
@@ -645,7 +651,7 @@ static void __init mini2440_init(void)
 	struct mini2440_features_t features = { 0 };
 	int i;
 
-	printk(KERN_INFO "MINI2440: Option string mini2440=%s\n",
+	pr_info("MINI2440: Option string mini2440=%s\n",
 			mini2440_features_str);
 
 	/* Parse the feature string */
@@ -674,17 +680,17 @@ static void __init mini2440_init(void)
 		mini2440_fb_info.displays =
 			&mini2440_lcd_cfg[features.lcd_index];
 
-		printk(KERN_INFO "MINI2440: LCD");
+		pr_info("MINI2440: LCD");
 		for (li = 0; li < ARRAY_SIZE(mini2440_lcd_cfg); li++)
 			if (li == features.lcd_index)
-				printk(" [%d:%dx%d]", li,
+				pr_info(" [%d:%dx%d]", li,
 					mini2440_lcd_cfg[li].width,
 					mini2440_lcd_cfg[li].height);
 			else
-				printk(" %d:%dx%d", li,
+				pr_info(" %d:%dx%d", li,
 					mini2440_lcd_cfg[li].width,
 					mini2440_lcd_cfg[li].height);
-		printk("\n");
+		pr_info("\n");
 		s3c24xx_fb_set_platdata(&mini2440_fb_info);
 	}
 
-- 
2.18.0

[PATCH v3 1/2] ARM: s3c24xx: formatting cleanup in mach-mini2440.c

[Cedric Roux]

Running:
    scripts/checkpatch.pl -f arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c
revealed several errors and warnings.

They were all removed, except one which is an #if 0 around the declaration
of a gpio pin. This needs some more investigation and I prefer to let it
here. This is not some dead code.

'printk' was replaced by 'pr_info'.

Signed-off-by: Cedric Roux <sed@free.fr>
---
 arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c | 80 ++++++++++++++-------------
 1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c b/arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c
index f9fc1f8d2b28..4a0bf6abba8c 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c
@@ -64,8 +64,8 @@ static struct map_desc mini2440_iodesc[] __initdata = {
 };
 
 #define UCON S3C2410_UCON_DEFAULT
-#define ULCON S3C2410_LCON_CS8 | S3C2410_LCON_PNONE | S3C2410_LCON_STOPB
-#define UFCON S3C2410_UFCON_RXTRIG8 | S3C2410_UFCON_FIFOMODE
+#define ULCON (S3C2410_LCON_CS8 | S3C2410_LCON_PNONE | S3C2410_LCON_STOPB)
+#define UFCON (S3C2410_UFCON_RXTRIG8 | S3C2410_UFCON_FIFOMODE)
 
 
 static struct s3c2410_uartcfg mini2440_uartcfgs[] __initdata = {
@@ -104,8 +104,8 @@ static struct s3c2410_udc_mach_info mini2440_udc_cfg __initdata = {
 /*
  * This macro simplifies the table bellow
  */
-#define _LCD_DECLARE(_clock,_xres,margin_left,margin_right,hsync, \
-			_yres,margin_top,margin_bottom,vsync, refresh) \
+#define _LCD_DECLARE(_clock, _xres, margin_left, margin_right, hsync, \
+			_yres, margin_top, margin_bottom, vsync, refresh) \
 	.width = _xres, \
 	.xres = _xres, \
 	.height = _yres, \
@@ -128,7 +128,7 @@ static struct s3c2410fb_display mini2440_lcd_cfg[] __initdata = {
 	[0] = {	/* mini2440 + 3.5" TFT + touchscreen */
 		_LCD_DECLARE(
 			7,			/* The 3.5 is quite fast */
-			240, 21, 38, 6, 	/* x timing */
+			240, 21, 38, 6,		/* x timing */
 			320, 4, 4, 2,		/* y timing */
 			60),			/* refresh rate */
 		.lcdcon5	= (S3C2410_LCDCON5_FRM565 |
@@ -140,7 +140,7 @@ static struct s3c2410fb_display mini2440_lcd_cfg[] __initdata = {
 	[1] = { /* mini2440 + 7" TFT + touchscreen */
 		_LCD_DECLARE(
 			10,			/* the 7" runs slower */
-			800, 40, 40, 48, 	/* x timing */
+			800, 40, 40, 48,	/* x timing */
 			480, 29, 3, 3,		/* y timing */
 			50),			/* refresh rate */
 		.lcdcon5	= (S3C2410_LCDCON5_FRM565 |
@@ -148,7 +148,7 @@ static struct s3c2410fb_display mini2440_lcd_cfg[] __initdata = {
 				   S3C2410_LCDCON5_INVVFRAME |
 				   S3C2410_LCDCON5_PWREN),
 	},
-	/* The VGA shield can outout at several resolutions. All share 
+	/* The VGA shield can outout at several resolutions. All share
 	 * the same timings, however, anything smaller than 1024x768
 	 * will only be displayed in the top left corner of a 1024x768
 	 * XGA output unless you add optional dip switches to the shield.
@@ -158,9 +158,10 @@ static struct s3c2410fb_display mini2440_lcd_cfg[] __initdata = {
 		_LCD_DECLARE(
 			10,
 			1024, 1, 2, 2,		/* y timing */
-			768, 200, 16, 16, 	/* x timing */
+			768, 200, 16, 16,	/* x timing */
 			24),	/* refresh rate, maximum stable,
-				 tested with the FPGA shield */
+				 * tested with the FPGA shield
+				 */
 		.lcdcon5	= (S3C2410_LCDCON5_FRM565 |
 				   S3C2410_LCDCON5_HWSWP),
 	},
@@ -196,7 +197,8 @@ static struct s3c2410fb_mach_info mini2440_fb_info __initdata = {
 
 	/* Enable VD[2..7], VD[10..15], VD[18..23] and VCLK, syncs, VDEN
 	 * and disable the pull down resistors on pins we are using for LCD
-	 * data. */
+	 * data.
+	 */
 
 	.gpcup		= (0xf << 1) | (0x3f << 10),
 
@@ -232,10 +234,10 @@ static struct s3c2410fb_mach_info mini2440_fb_info __initdata = {
 /* MMC/SD  */
 
 static struct s3c24xx_mci_pdata mini2440_mmc_cfg __initdata = {
-   .gpio_detect   = S3C2410_GPG(8),
-   .gpio_wprotect = S3C2410_GPH(8),
-   .set_power     = NULL,
-   .ocr_avail     = MMC_VDD_32_33|MMC_VDD_33_34,
+	.gpio_detect   = S3C2410_GPG(8),
+	.gpio_wprotect = S3C2410_GPH(8),
+	.set_power     = NULL,
+	.ocr_avail     = MMC_VDD_32_33|MMC_VDD_33_34,
 };
 
 /* NAND Flash on MINI2440 board */
@@ -254,7 +256,8 @@ static struct mtd_partition mini2440_default_nand_part[] __initdata = {
 	[2] = {
 		.name	= "kernel",
 		/* 5 megabytes, for a kernel with no modules
-		 * or a uImage with a ramdisk attached */
+		 * or a uImage with a ramdisk attached
+		 */
 		.size	= 0x00500000,
 		.offset	= SZ_256K + SZ_128K,
 	},
@@ -271,7 +274,7 @@ static struct s3c2410_nand_set mini2440_nand_sets[] __initdata = {
 		.nr_chips	= 1,
 		.nr_partitions	= ARRAY_SIZE(mini2440_default_nand_part),
 		.partitions	= mini2440_default_nand_part,
-		.flash_bbt 	= 1, /* we use u-boot to create a BBT */
+		.flash_bbt	= 1, /* we use u-boot to create a BBT */
 	},
 };
 
@@ -290,7 +293,7 @@ static struct s3c2410_platform_nand mini2440_nand_info __initdata = {
 static struct resource mini2440_dm9k_resource[] = {
 	[0] = DEFINE_RES_MEM(MACH_MINI2440_DM9K_BASE, 4),
 	[1] = DEFINE_RES_MEM(MACH_MINI2440_DM9K_BASE + 4, 4),
-	[2] = DEFINE_RES_NAMED(IRQ_EINT7, 1, NULL, IORESOURCE_IRQ \
+	[2] = DEFINE_RES_NAMED(IRQ_EINT7, 1, NULL, IORESOURCE_IRQ
 						| IORESOURCE_IRQ_HIGHEDGE),
 };
 
@@ -362,7 +365,8 @@ static struct gpio_keys_button mini2440_buttons[] = {
 	},
 #if 0
 	/* this pin is also known as TCLK1 and seems to already
-	 * marked as "in use" somehow in the kernel -- possibly wrongly */
+	 * marked as "in use" somehow in the kernel -- possibly wrongly
+	 */
 	{
 		.gpio		= S3C2410_GPG(11),	/* K6 */
 		.code		= KEY_F6,
@@ -564,7 +568,8 @@ static char mini2440_features_str[12] __initdata = "0tb";
 static int __init mini2440_features_setup(char *str)
 {
 	if (str)
-		strlcpy(mini2440_features_str, str, sizeof(mini2440_features_str));
+		strlcpy(mini2440_features_str, str,
+			sizeof(mini2440_features_str));
 	return 1;
 }
 
@@ -583,10 +588,10 @@ struct mini2440_features_t {
 };
 
 static void __init mini2440_parse_features(
-		struct mini2440_features_t * features,
-		const char * features_str )
+		struct mini2440_features_t *features,
+		const char *features_str)
 {
-	const char * fp = features_str;
+	const char *fp = features_str;
 
 	features->count = 0;
 	features->done = 0;
@@ -598,13 +603,14 @@ static void __init mini2440_parse_features(
 		switch (f) {
 		case '0'...'9':	/* tft screen */
 			if (features->done & FEATURE_SCREEN) {
-				printk(KERN_INFO "MINI2440: '%c' ignored, "
-					"screen type already set\n", f);
+				pr_info("MINI2440: '%c' ignored, screen type already set\n",
+					f);
 			} else {
 				int li = f - '0';
+
 				if (li >= ARRAY_SIZE(mini2440_lcd_cfg))
-					printk(KERN_INFO "MINI2440: "
-						"'%c' out of range LCD mode\n", f);
+					pr_info("MINI2440: '%c' out of range LCD mode\n",
+						f);
 				else {
 					features->optional[features->count++] =
 							&s3c_device_lcd;
@@ -615,8 +621,8 @@ static void __init mini2440_parse_features(
 			break;
 		case 'b':
 			if (features->done & FEATURE_BACKLIGHT)
-				printk(KERN_INFO "MINI2440: '%c' ignored, "
-					"backlight already set\n", f);
+				pr_info("MINI2440: '%c' ignored, backlight already set\n",
+					f);
 			else {
 				features->optional[features->count++] =
 						&mini2440_led_backlight;
@@ -624,13 +630,13 @@ static void __init mini2440_parse_features(
 			features->done |= FEATURE_BACKLIGHT;
 			break;
 		case 't':
-			printk(KERN_INFO "MINI2440: '%c' ignored, "
-				"touchscreen not compiled in\n", f);
+			pr_info("MINI2440: '%c' ignored, touchscreen not compiled in\n",
+				f);
 			break;
 		case 'c':
 			if (features->done & FEATURE_CAMERA)
-				printk(KERN_INFO "MINI2440: '%c' ignored, "
-					"camera already registered\n", f);
+				pr_info("MINI2440: '%c' ignored, camera already registered\n",
+					f);
 			else
 				features->optional[features->count++] =
 					&s3c_device_camif;
@@ -645,7 +651,7 @@ static void __init mini2440_init(void)
 	struct mini2440_features_t features = { 0 };
 	int i;
 
-	printk(KERN_INFO "MINI2440: Option string mini2440=%s\n",
+	pr_info("MINI2440: Option string mini2440=%s\n",
 			mini2440_features_str);
 
 	/* Parse the feature string */
@@ -674,17 +680,17 @@ static void __init mini2440_init(void)
 		mini2440_fb_info.displays =
 			&mini2440_lcd_cfg[features.lcd_index];
 
-		printk(KERN_INFO "MINI2440: LCD");
+		pr_info("MINI2440: LCD");
 		for (li = 0; li < ARRAY_SIZE(mini2440_lcd_cfg); li++)
 			if (li == features.lcd_index)
-				printk(" [%d:%dx%d]", li,
+				pr_info(" [%d:%dx%d]", li,
 					mini2440_lcd_cfg[li].width,
 					mini2440_lcd_cfg[li].height);
 			else
-				printk(" %d:%dx%d", li,
+				pr_info(" %d:%dx%d", li,
 					mini2440_lcd_cfg[li].width,
 					mini2440_lcd_cfg[li].height);
-		printk("\n");
+		pr_info("\n");
 		s3c24xx_fb_set_platdata(&mini2440_fb_info);
 	}
 
-- 
2.18.0

[PATCH v3 2/2] ARM: s3c24xx: Correct SD card write protect detection on Mini2440

[Cedric Roux]

The mini2440 computer uses "active high" to signal that the "write protect"
of the inserted MMC is set. The current code uses the opposite, leading to
a wrong detection of write protection. The solution is simply to use
".wprotect_invert = 1" in the description of the MMC.

Signed-off-by: Cedric Roux <sed@free.fr>
---
 arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c | 9 +++++----
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c b/arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c
index 4a0bf6abba8c..bfce7971d741 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c
@@ -234,10 +234,11 @@ static struct s3c2410fb_mach_info mini2440_fb_info __initdata = {
 /* MMC/SD  */
 
 static struct s3c24xx_mci_pdata mini2440_mmc_cfg __initdata = {
-	.gpio_detect   = S3C2410_GPG(8),
-	.gpio_wprotect = S3C2410_GPH(8),
-	.set_power     = NULL,
-	.ocr_avail     = MMC_VDD_32_33|MMC_VDD_33_34,
+	.gpio_detect     = S3C2410_GPG(8),
+	.gpio_wprotect   = S3C2410_GPH(8),
+	.wprotect_invert = 1,
+	.set_power       = NULL,
+	.ocr_avail       = MMC_VDD_32_33|MMC_VDD_33_34,
 };
 
 /* NAND Flash on MINI2440 board */
-- 
2.18.0

[PATCH v3 2/2] ARM: s3c24xx: Correct SD card write protect detection on Mini2440

[Cedric Roux]

The mini2440 computer uses "active high" to signal that the "write protect"
of the inserted MMC is set. The current code uses the opposite, leading to
a wrong detection of write protection. The solution is simply to use
".wprotect_invert = 1" in the description of the MMC.

Signed-off-by: Cedric Roux <sed@free.fr>
---
 arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c | 9 +++++----
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c b/arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c
index 4a0bf6abba8c..bfce7971d741 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c
@@ -234,10 +234,11 @@ static struct s3c2410fb_mach_info mini2440_fb_info __initdata = {
 /* MMC/SD  */
 
 static struct s3c24xx_mci_pdata mini2440_mmc_cfg __initdata = {
-	.gpio_detect   = S3C2410_GPG(8),
-	.gpio_wprotect = S3C2410_GPH(8),
-	.set_power     = NULL,
-	.ocr_avail     = MMC_VDD_32_33|MMC_VDD_33_34,
+	.gpio_detect     = S3C2410_GPG(8),
+	.gpio_wprotect   = S3C2410_GPH(8),
+	.wprotect_invert = 1,
+	.set_power       = NULL,
+	.ocr_avail       = MMC_VDD_32_33|MMC_VDD_33_34,
 };
 
 /* NAND Flash on MINI2440 board */
-- 
2.18.0

Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] ARM: s3c24xx: Correct SD card write protect detection on Mini2440

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 at 23:53, Cedric Roux <sed@free.fr> wrote:
>
> The mini2440 computer uses "active high" to signal that the "write protect"
> of the inserted MMC is set. The current code uses the opposite, leading to
> a wrong detection of write protection. The solution is simply to use
> ".wprotect_invert = 1" in the description of the MMC.
>
> Signed-off-by: Cedric Roux <sed@free.fr>
> ---
>  arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c | 9 +++++----
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c b/arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c
> index 4a0bf6abba8c..bfce7971d741 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c
> @@ -234,10 +234,11 @@ static struct s3c2410fb_mach_info mini2440_fb_info __initdata = {
>  /* MMC/SD  */
>
>  static struct s3c24xx_mci_pdata mini2440_mmc_cfg __initdata = {
> -       .gpio_detect   = S3C2410_GPG(8),
> -       .gpio_wprotect = S3C2410_GPH(8),
> -       .set_power     = NULL,
> -       .ocr_avail     = MMC_VDD_32_33|MMC_VDD_33_34,
> +       .gpio_detect     = S3C2410_GPG(8),
> +       .gpio_wprotect   = S3C2410_GPH(8),
> +       .wprotect_invert = 1,
> +       .set_power       = NULL,
> +       .ocr_avail       = MMC_VDD_32_33|MMC_VDD_33_34,

This looks unexpected... after patch 1 there should be only one change
- one new line added. What happened here?

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] ARM: s3c24xx: Correct SD card write protect detection on Mini2440

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 at 23:53, Cedric Roux <sed@free.fr> wrote:
>
> The mini2440 computer uses "active high" to signal that the "write protect"
> of the inserted MMC is set. The current code uses the opposite, leading to
> a wrong detection of write protection. The solution is simply to use
> ".wprotect_invert = 1" in the description of the MMC.
>
> Signed-off-by: Cedric Roux <sed@free.fr>
> ---
>  arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c | 9 +++++----
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c b/arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c
> index 4a0bf6abba8c..bfce7971d741 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c
> @@ -234,10 +234,11 @@ static struct s3c2410fb_mach_info mini2440_fb_info __initdata = {
>  /* MMC/SD  */
>
>  static struct s3c24xx_mci_pdata mini2440_mmc_cfg __initdata = {
> -       .gpio_detect   = S3C2410_GPG(8),
> -       .gpio_wprotect = S3C2410_GPH(8),
> -       .set_power     = NULL,
> -       .ocr_avail     = MMC_VDD_32_33|MMC_VDD_33_34,
> +       .gpio_detect     = S3C2410_GPG(8),
> +       .gpio_wprotect   = S3C2410_GPH(8),
> +       .wprotect_invert = 1,
> +       .set_power       = NULL,
> +       .ocr_avail       = MMC_VDD_32_33|MMC_VDD_33_34,

This looks unexpected... after patch 1 there should be only one change
- one new line added. What happened here?

Best regards,
Krzysztof

[PATCH v3 2/2] ARM: s3c24xx: Correct SD card write protect detection on Mini2440

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 at 23:53, Cedric Roux <sed@free.fr> wrote:
>
> The mini2440 computer uses "active high" to signal that the "write protect"
> of the inserted MMC is set. The current code uses the opposite, leading to
> a wrong detection of write protection. The solution is simply to use
> ".wprotect_invert = 1" in the description of the MMC.
>
> Signed-off-by: Cedric Roux <sed@free.fr>
> ---
>  arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c | 9 +++++----
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c b/arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c
> index 4a0bf6abba8c..bfce7971d741 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c
> @@ -234,10 +234,11 @@ static struct s3c2410fb_mach_info mini2440_fb_info __initdata = {
>  /* MMC/SD  */
>
>  static struct s3c24xx_mci_pdata mini2440_mmc_cfg __initdata = {
> -       .gpio_detect   = S3C2410_GPG(8),
> -       .gpio_wprotect = S3C2410_GPH(8),
> -       .set_power     = NULL,
> -       .ocr_avail     = MMC_VDD_32_33|MMC_VDD_33_34,
> +       .gpio_detect     = S3C2410_GPG(8),
> +       .gpio_wprotect   = S3C2410_GPH(8),
> +       .wprotect_invert = 1,
> +       .set_power       = NULL,
> +       .ocr_avail       = MMC_VDD_32_33|MMC_VDD_33_34,

This looks unexpected... after patch 1 there should be only one change
- one new line added. What happened here?

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] ARM: s3c24xx: Correct SD card write protect detection on Mini2440

[Cedric Roux]

On 09/10/2018 12:23 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>  static struct s3c24xx_mci_pdata mini2440_mmc_cfg __initdata = {
>> -       .gpio_detect   = S3C2410_GPG(8),
>> -       .gpio_wprotect = S3C2410_GPH(8),
>> -       .set_power     = NULL,
>> -       .ocr_avail     = MMC_VDD_32_33|MMC_VDD_33_34,
>> +       .gpio_detect     = S3C2410_GPG(8),
>> +       .gpio_wprotect   = S3C2410_GPH(8),
>> +       .wprotect_invert = 1,
>> +       .set_power       = NULL,
>> +       .ocr_avail       = MMC_VDD_32_33|MMC_VDD_33_34,
> 
> This looks unexpected... after patch 1 there should be only one change
> - one new line added. What happened here?

This is to align all the '='.

These were spaces before the '=' so I also used spaces.
Should I put TABs instead? I looked in the coding style
and didn't find anything about this specific thing
(maybe I read too fast though).

And if this ends up unaligned because 'wprotect_invert'
requires a second TAB for the others, should I do a separate
commit?

Thanks.

Regards,
Cédric.

Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] ARM: s3c24xx: Correct SD card write protect detection on Mini2440

[Cedric Roux]

On 09/10/2018 12:23 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>  static struct s3c24xx_mci_pdata mini2440_mmc_cfg __initdata = {
>> -       .gpio_detect   = S3C2410_GPG(8),
>> -       .gpio_wprotect = S3C2410_GPH(8),
>> -       .set_power     = NULL,
>> -       .ocr_avail     = MMC_VDD_32_33|MMC_VDD_33_34,
>> +       .gpio_detect     = S3C2410_GPG(8),
>> +       .gpio_wprotect   = S3C2410_GPH(8),
>> +       .wprotect_invert = 1,
>> +       .set_power       = NULL,
>> +       .ocr_avail       = MMC_VDD_32_33|MMC_VDD_33_34,
> 
> This looks unexpected... after patch 1 there should be only one change
> - one new line added. What happened here?

This is to align all the '='.

These were spaces before the '=' so I also used spaces.
Should I put TABs instead? I looked in the coding style
and didn't find anything about this specific thing
(maybe I read too fast though).

And if this ends up unaligned because 'wprotect_invert'
requires a second TAB for the others, should I do a separate
commit?

Thanks.

Regards,
Cédric.

[PATCH v3 2/2] ARM: s3c24xx: Correct SD card write protect detection on Mini2440

[Cedric Roux]

On 09/10/2018 12:23 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>  static struct s3c24xx_mci_pdata mini2440_mmc_cfg __initdata = {
>> -       .gpio_detect   = S3C2410_GPG(8),
>> -       .gpio_wprotect = S3C2410_GPH(8),
>> -       .set_power     = NULL,
>> -       .ocr_avail     = MMC_VDD_32_33|MMC_VDD_33_34,
>> +       .gpio_detect     = S3C2410_GPG(8),
>> +       .gpio_wprotect   = S3C2410_GPH(8),
>> +       .wprotect_invert = 1,
>> +       .set_power       = NULL,
>> +       .ocr_avail       = MMC_VDD_32_33|MMC_VDD_33_34,
> 
> This looks unexpected... after patch 1 there should be only one change
> - one new line added. What happened here?

This is to align all the '='.

These were spaces before the '=' so I also used spaces.
Should I put TABs instead? I looked in the coding style
and didn't find anything about this specific thing
(maybe I read too fast though).

And if this ends up unaligned because 'wprotect_invert'
requires a second TAB for the others, should I do a separate
commit?

Thanks.

Regards,
C?dric.

Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] ARM: s3c24xx: Correct SD card write protect detection on Mini2440

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 06:55:09PM +0200, Cedric Roux wrote:
> On 09/10/2018 12:23 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >>  static struct s3c24xx_mci_pdata mini2440_mmc_cfg __initdata = {
> >> -       .gpio_detect   = S3C2410_GPG(8),
> >> -       .gpio_wprotect = S3C2410_GPH(8),
> >> -       .set_power     = NULL,
> >> -       .ocr_avail     = MMC_VDD_32_33|MMC_VDD_33_34,
> >> +       .gpio_detect     = S3C2410_GPG(8),
> >> +       .gpio_wprotect   = S3C2410_GPH(8),
> >> +       .wprotect_invert = 1,
> >> +       .set_power       = NULL,
> >> +       .ocr_avail       = MMC_VDD_32_33|MMC_VDD_33_34,
> > 
> > This looks unexpected... after patch 1 there should be only one change
> > - one new line added. What happened here?
> 
> This is to align all the '='.
> 
> These were spaces before the '=' so I also used spaces.
> Should I put TABs instead? I looked in the coding style
> and didn't find anything about this specific thing
> (maybe I read too fast though).
> 
> And if this ends up unaligned because 'wprotect_invert'
> requires a second TAB for the others, should I do a separate
> commit?

Ah, I understand. It's okay, thanks!


Best regards,
Krzysztof

Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] ARM: s3c24xx: Correct SD card write protect detection on Mini2440

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 06:55:09PM +0200, Cedric Roux wrote:
> On 09/10/2018 12:23 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >>  static struct s3c24xx_mci_pdata mini2440_mmc_cfg __initdata = {
> >> -       .gpio_detect   = S3C2410_GPG(8),
> >> -       .gpio_wprotect = S3C2410_GPH(8),
> >> -       .set_power     = NULL,
> >> -       .ocr_avail     = MMC_VDD_32_33|MMC_VDD_33_34,
> >> +       .gpio_detect     = S3C2410_GPG(8),
> >> +       .gpio_wprotect   = S3C2410_GPH(8),
> >> +       .wprotect_invert = 1,
> >> +       .set_power       = NULL,
> >> +       .ocr_avail       = MMC_VDD_32_33|MMC_VDD_33_34,
> > 
> > This looks unexpected... after patch 1 there should be only one change
> > - one new line added. What happened here?
> 
> This is to align all the '='.
> 
> These were spaces before the '=' so I also used spaces.
> Should I put TABs instead? I looked in the coding style
> and didn't find anything about this specific thing
> (maybe I read too fast though).
> 
> And if this ends up unaligned because 'wprotect_invert'
> requires a second TAB for the others, should I do a separate
> commit?

Ah, I understand. It's okay, thanks!


Best regards,
Krzysztof

[PATCH v3 2/2] ARM: s3c24xx: Correct SD card write protect detection on Mini2440

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 06:55:09PM +0200, Cedric Roux wrote:
> On 09/10/2018 12:23 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >>  static struct s3c24xx_mci_pdata mini2440_mmc_cfg __initdata = {
> >> -       .gpio_detect   = S3C2410_GPG(8),
> >> -       .gpio_wprotect = S3C2410_GPH(8),
> >> -       .set_power     = NULL,
> >> -       .ocr_avail     = MMC_VDD_32_33|MMC_VDD_33_34,
> >> +       .gpio_detect     = S3C2410_GPG(8),
> >> +       .gpio_wprotect   = S3C2410_GPH(8),
> >> +       .wprotect_invert = 1,
> >> +       .set_power       = NULL,
> >> +       .ocr_avail       = MMC_VDD_32_33|MMC_VDD_33_34,
> > 
> > This looks unexpected... after patch 1 there should be only one change
> > - one new line added. What happened here?
> 
> This is to align all the '='.
> 
> These were spaces before the '=' so I also used spaces.
> Should I put TABs instead? I looked in the coding style
> and didn't find anything about this specific thing
> (maybe I read too fast though).
> 
> And if this ends up unaligned because 'wprotect_invert'
> requires a second TAB for the others, should I do a separate
> commit?

Ah, I understand. It's okay, thanks!


Best regards,
Krzysztof

Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] ARM: s3c24xx: formatting cleanup in mach-mini2440.c

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On Fri, Sep 07, 2018 at 11:54:45PM +0200, Cedric Roux wrote:
> Running:
>     scripts/checkpatch.pl -f arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c
> revealed several errors and warnings.
> 
> They were all removed, except one which is an #if 0 around the declaration
> of a gpio pin. This needs some more investigation and I prefer to let it
> here. This is not some dead code.
> 
> 'printk' was replaced by 'pr_info'.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Cedric Roux <sed@free.fr>
> ---
>  arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c | 80 ++++++++++++++-------------

Thanks, applied.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

[PATCH v3 1/2] ARM: s3c24xx: formatting cleanup in mach-mini2440.c

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On Fri, Sep 07, 2018 at 11:54:45PM +0200, Cedric Roux wrote:
> Running:
>     scripts/checkpatch.pl -f arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c
> revealed several errors and warnings.
> 
> They were all removed, except one which is an #if 0 around the declaration
> of a gpio pin. This needs some more investigation and I prefer to let it
> here. This is not some dead code.
> 
> 'printk' was replaced by 'pr_info'.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Cedric Roux <sed@free.fr>
> ---
>  arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c | 80 ++++++++++++++-------------

Thanks, applied.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] ARM: s3c24xx: Correct SD card write protect detection on Mini2440

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On Fri, Sep 07, 2018 at 11:54:46PM +0200, Cedric Roux wrote:
> The mini2440 computer uses "active high" to signal that the "write protect"
> of the inserted MMC is set. The current code uses the opposite, leading to
> a wrong detection of write protection. The solution is simply to use
> ".wprotect_invert = 1" in the description of the MMC.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Cedric Roux <sed@free.fr>
> ---
>  arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c | 9 +++++----

Thanks, applied.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

[PATCH v3 2/2] ARM: s3c24xx: Correct SD card write protect detection on Mini2440

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On Fri, Sep 07, 2018 at 11:54:46PM +0200, Cedric Roux wrote:
> The mini2440 computer uses "active high" to signal that the "write protect"
> of the inserted MMC is set. The current code uses the opposite, leading to
> a wrong detection of write protection. The solution is simply to use
> ".wprotect_invert = 1" in the description of the MMC.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Cedric Roux <sed@free.fr>
> ---
>  arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c | 9 +++++----

Thanks, applied.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] ARM: s3c24xx: formatting cleanup in mach-mini2440.c

[Joe Perches]

On Fri, 2018-09-07 at 23:54 +0200, Cedric Roux wrote:
> Running:
>     scripts/checkpatch.pl -f arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c
> revealed several errors and warnings.
> 
> They were all removed, except one which is an #if 0 around the declaration
> of a gpio pin. This needs some more investigation and I prefer to let it
> here. This is not some dead code.
[]
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c b/arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c
[]
> @@ -674,17 +680,17 @@ static void __init mini2440_init(void)
>  		mini2440_fb_info.displays =
>  			&mini2440_lcd_cfg[features.lcd_index];
>  
> -		printk(KERN_INFO "MINI2440: LCD");
> +		pr_info("MINI2440: LCD");

OK

>  		for (li = 0; li < ARRAY_SIZE(mini2440_lcd_cfg); li++)
>  			if (li == features.lcd_index)
> -				printk(" [%d:%dx%d]", li,
> +				pr_info(" [%d:%dx%d]", li,
>  					mini2440_lcd_cfg[li].width,
>  					mini2440_lcd_cfg[li].height);

pr_cont

>  			else
> -				printk(" %d:%dx%d", li,
> +				pr_info(" %d:%dx%d", li,

pr_cont

>  					mini2440_lcd_cfg[li].width,
>  					mini2440_lcd_cfg[li].height);
> -		printk("\n");
> +		pr_info("\n");

pr_cont

So only the first printk should use pr_info().
The subsequent printk uses should use pr_cont()

>  		s3c24xx_fb_set_platdata(&mini2440_fb_info);
>  	}
>  

[PATCH v3 1/2] ARM: s3c24xx: formatting cleanup in mach-mini2440.c

[Joe Perches]

On Fri, 2018-09-07 at 23:54 +0200, Cedric Roux wrote:
> Running:
>     scripts/checkpatch.pl -f arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c
> revealed several errors and warnings.
> 
> They were all removed, except one which is an #if 0 around the declaration
> of a gpio pin. This needs some more investigation and I prefer to let it
> here. This is not some dead code.
[]
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c b/arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c
[]
> @@ -674,17 +680,17 @@ static void __init mini2440_init(void)
>  		mini2440_fb_info.displays =
>  			&mini2440_lcd_cfg[features.lcd_index];
>  
> -		printk(KERN_INFO "MINI2440: LCD");
> +		pr_info("MINI2440: LCD");

OK

>  		for (li = 0; li < ARRAY_SIZE(mini2440_lcd_cfg); li++)
>  			if (li == features.lcd_index)
> -				printk(" [%d:%dx%d]", li,
> +				pr_info(" [%d:%dx%d]", li,
>  					mini2440_lcd_cfg[li].width,
>  					mini2440_lcd_cfg[li].height);

pr_cont

>  			else
> -				printk(" %d:%dx%d", li,
> +				pr_info(" %d:%dx%d", li,

pr_cont

>  					mini2440_lcd_cfg[li].width,
>  					mini2440_lcd_cfg[li].height);
> -		printk("\n");
> +		pr_info("\n");

pr_cont

So only the first printk should use pr_info().
The subsequent printk uses should use pr_cont()

>  		s3c24xx_fb_set_platdata(&mini2440_fb_info);
>  	}
>  

Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] ARM: s3c24xx: formatting cleanup in mach-mini2440.c

[Cedric Roux]

Hi,

On 09/12/2018 09:21 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-09-07 at 23:54 +0200, Cedric Roux wrote:
>> Running:
>>     scripts/checkpatch.pl -f arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c
>> revealed several errors and warnings.
>>
>> They were all removed, except one which is an #if 0 around the declaration
>> of a gpio pin. This needs some more investigation and I prefer to let it
>> here. This is not some dead code.
> []
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c b/arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c
> []
>> @@ -674,17 +680,17 @@ static void __init mini2440_init(void)
>>  		mini2440_fb_info.displays =
>>  			&mini2440_lcd_cfg[features.lcd_index];
>>  
>> -		printk(KERN_INFO "MINI2440: LCD");
>> +		pr_info("MINI2440: LCD");
> 
> OK
> 
>>  		for (li = 0; li < ARRAY_SIZE(mini2440_lcd_cfg); li++)
>>  			if (li == features.lcd_index)
>> -				printk(" [%d:%dx%d]", li,
>> +				pr_info(" [%d:%dx%d]", li,
>>  					mini2440_lcd_cfg[li].width,
>>  					mini2440_lcd_cfg[li].height);
> 
> pr_cont
> 
>>  			else
>> -				printk(" %d:%dx%d", li,
>> +				pr_info(" %d:%dx%d", li,
> 
> pr_cont
> 
>>  					mini2440_lcd_cfg[li].width,
>>  					mini2440_lcd_cfg[li].height);
>> -		printk("\n");
>> +		pr_info("\n");
> 
> pr_cont
> 
> So only the first printk should use pr_info().
> The subsequent printk uses should use pr_cont()

at this point, I don't know what to do.

Should I resubmit the patches? Or is it in the hands of
Krzysztof (krzk@kernel.org)? I would say a git rebase -i
is enough to edit the patch and this rebase is obviously
not to be done by me, but I don't know the process.

Regards,
Cédric.



> 
>>  		s3c24xx_fb_set_platdata(&mini2440_fb_info);
>>  	}
>>  

[PATCH v3 1/2] ARM: s3c24xx: formatting cleanup in mach-mini2440.c

[Cedric Roux]

Hi,

On 09/12/2018 09:21 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-09-07 at 23:54 +0200, Cedric Roux wrote:
>> Running:
>>     scripts/checkpatch.pl -f arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c
>> revealed several errors and warnings.
>>
>> They were all removed, except one which is an #if 0 around the declaration
>> of a gpio pin. This needs some more investigation and I prefer to let it
>> here. This is not some dead code.
> []
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c b/arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c
> []
>> @@ -674,17 +680,17 @@ static void __init mini2440_init(void)
>>  		mini2440_fb_info.displays =
>>  			&mini2440_lcd_cfg[features.lcd_index];
>>  
>> -		printk(KERN_INFO "MINI2440: LCD");
>> +		pr_info("MINI2440: LCD");
> 
> OK
> 
>>  		for (li = 0; li < ARRAY_SIZE(mini2440_lcd_cfg); li++)
>>  			if (li == features.lcd_index)
>> -				printk(" [%d:%dx%d]", li,
>> +				pr_info(" [%d:%dx%d]", li,
>>  					mini2440_lcd_cfg[li].width,
>>  					mini2440_lcd_cfg[li].height);
> 
> pr_cont
> 
>>  			else
>> -				printk(" %d:%dx%d", li,
>> +				pr_info(" %d:%dx%d", li,
> 
> pr_cont
> 
>>  					mini2440_lcd_cfg[li].width,
>>  					mini2440_lcd_cfg[li].height);
>> -		printk("\n");
>> +		pr_info("\n");
> 
> pr_cont
> 
> So only the first printk should use pr_info().
> The subsequent printk uses should use pr_cont()

at this point, I don't know what to do.

Should I resubmit the patches? Or is it in the hands of
Krzysztof (krzk at kernel.org)? I would say a git rebase -i
is enough to edit the patch and this rebase is obviously
not to be done by me, but I don't know the process.

Regards,
C?dric.



> 
>>  		s3c24xx_fb_set_platdata(&mini2440_fb_info);
>>  	}
>>  

Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] ARM: s3c24xx: formatting cleanup in mach-mini2440.c

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 at 22:24, Cedric Roux <sed@free.fr> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 09/12/2018 09:21 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Fri, 2018-09-07 at 23:54 +0200, Cedric Roux wrote:
> >> Running:
> >>     scripts/checkpatch.pl -f arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c
> >> revealed several errors and warnings.
> >>
> >> They were all removed, except one which is an #if 0 around the declaration
> >> of a gpio pin. This needs some more investigation and I prefer to let it
> >> here. This is not some dead code.
> > []
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c b/arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c
> > []
> >> @@ -674,17 +680,17 @@ static void __init mini2440_init(void)
> >>              mini2440_fb_info.displays =
> >>                      &mini2440_lcd_cfg[features.lcd_index];
> >>
> >> -            printk(KERN_INFO "MINI2440: LCD");
> >> +            pr_info("MINI2440: LCD");
> >
> > OK
> >
> >>              for (li = 0; li < ARRAY_SIZE(mini2440_lcd_cfg); li++)
> >>                      if (li == features.lcd_index)
> >> -                            printk(" [%d:%dx%d]", li,
> >> +                            pr_info(" [%d:%dx%d]", li,
> >>                                      mini2440_lcd_cfg[li].width,
> >>                                      mini2440_lcd_cfg[li].height);
> >
> > pr_cont
> >
> >>                      else
> >> -                            printk(" %d:%dx%d", li,
> >> +                            pr_info(" %d:%dx%d", li,
> >
> > pr_cont
> >
> >>                                      mini2440_lcd_cfg[li].width,
> >>                                      mini2440_lcd_cfg[li].height);
> >> -            printk("\n");
> >> +            pr_info("\n");
> >
> > pr_cont
> >
> > So only the first printk should use pr_info().
> > The subsequent printk uses should use pr_cont()
>
> at this point, I don't know what to do.
>
> Should I resubmit the patches? Or is it in the hands of
> Krzysztof (krzk@kernel.org)? I would say a git rebase -i
> is enough to edit the patch and this rebase is obviously
> not to be done by me, but I don't know the process.

Can you send a incremental fix for this, restoring the original
continued printks?

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] ARM: s3c24xx: formatting cleanup in mach-mini2440.c

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 at 22:24, Cedric Roux <sed@free.fr> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 09/12/2018 09:21 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Fri, 2018-09-07 at 23:54 +0200, Cedric Roux wrote:
> >> Running:
> >>     scripts/checkpatch.pl -f arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c
> >> revealed several errors and warnings.
> >>
> >> They were all removed, except one which is an #if 0 around the declaration
> >> of a gpio pin. This needs some more investigation and I prefer to let it
> >> here. This is not some dead code.
> > []
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c b/arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c
> > []
> >> @@ -674,17 +680,17 @@ static void __init mini2440_init(void)
> >>              mini2440_fb_info.displays =
> >>                      &mini2440_lcd_cfg[features.lcd_index];
> >>
> >> -            printk(KERN_INFO "MINI2440: LCD");
> >> +            pr_info("MINI2440: LCD");
> >
> > OK
> >
> >>              for (li = 0; li < ARRAY_SIZE(mini2440_lcd_cfg); li++)
> >>                      if (li == features.lcd_index)
> >> -                            printk(" [%d:%dx%d]", li,
> >> +                            pr_info(" [%d:%dx%d]", li,
> >>                                      mini2440_lcd_cfg[li].width,
> >>                                      mini2440_lcd_cfg[li].height);
> >
> > pr_cont
> >
> >>                      else
> >> -                            printk(" %d:%dx%d", li,
> >> +                            pr_info(" %d:%dx%d", li,
> >
> > pr_cont
> >
> >>                                      mini2440_lcd_cfg[li].width,
> >>                                      mini2440_lcd_cfg[li].height);
> >> -            printk("\n");
> >> +            pr_info("\n");
> >
> > pr_cont
> >
> > So only the first printk should use pr_info().
> > The subsequent printk uses should use pr_cont()
>
> at this point, I don't know what to do.
>
> Should I resubmit the patches? Or is it in the hands of
> Krzysztof (krzk@kernel.org)? I would say a git rebase -i
> is enough to edit the patch and this rebase is obviously
> not to be done by me, but I don't know the process.

Can you send a incremental fix for this, restoring the original
continued printks?

Best regards,
Krzysztof

[PATCH v3 1/2] ARM: s3c24xx: formatting cleanup in mach-mini2440.c

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 at 22:24, Cedric Roux <sed@free.fr> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 09/12/2018 09:21 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Fri, 2018-09-07 at 23:54 +0200, Cedric Roux wrote:
> >> Running:
> >>     scripts/checkpatch.pl -f arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c
> >> revealed several errors and warnings.
> >>
> >> They were all removed, except one which is an #if 0 around the declaration
> >> of a gpio pin. This needs some more investigation and I prefer to let it
> >> here. This is not some dead code.
> > []
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c b/arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c
> > []
> >> @@ -674,17 +680,17 @@ static void __init mini2440_init(void)
> >>              mini2440_fb_info.displays =
> >>                      &mini2440_lcd_cfg[features.lcd_index];
> >>
> >> -            printk(KERN_INFO "MINI2440: LCD");
> >> +            pr_info("MINI2440: LCD");
> >
> > OK
> >
> >>              for (li = 0; li < ARRAY_SIZE(mini2440_lcd_cfg); li++)
> >>                      if (li == features.lcd_index)
> >> -                            printk(" [%d:%dx%d]", li,
> >> +                            pr_info(" [%d:%dx%d]", li,
> >>                                      mini2440_lcd_cfg[li].width,
> >>                                      mini2440_lcd_cfg[li].height);
> >
> > pr_cont
> >
> >>                      else
> >> -                            printk(" %d:%dx%d", li,
> >> +                            pr_info(" %d:%dx%d", li,
> >
> > pr_cont
> >
> >>                                      mini2440_lcd_cfg[li].width,
> >>                                      mini2440_lcd_cfg[li].height);
> >> -            printk("\n");
> >> +            pr_info("\n");
> >
> > pr_cont
> >
> > So only the first printk should use pr_info().
> > The subsequent printk uses should use pr_cont()
>
> at this point, I don't know what to do.
>
> Should I resubmit the patches? Or is it in the hands of
> Krzysztof (krzk at kernel.org)? I would say a git rebase -i
> is enough to edit the patch and this rebase is obviously
> not to be done by me, but I don't know the process.

Can you send a incremental fix for this, restoring the original
continued printks?

Best regards,
Krzysztof