[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH v6 0/3] ppc/e500: Add support for eSDHC

From: BALATON Zoltan
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/3] ppc/e500: Add support for eSDHC
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2022 13:51:19 +0100 (CET)

On Wed, 2 Nov 2022, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
On 11/1/22 19:29, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
This is a respin of Bernhard's v4 with Freescale eSDHC implemented
as an 'UNIMP' region. See v4 cover here:

Since v5:
- Rebased (ppc-next merged)
- Properly handle big-endian

Since v4:
- Do not rename ESDHC_* definitions to USDHC_*
- Do not modify SDHCIState structure

Supersedes: <20221031115402.91912-1-philmd@linaro.org>

Queued in gitlab.com/danielhb/qemu/tree/ppc-8.0 (since we missed the
freeze for 7.2).

Could you please always use ppc-next to queue patches for the next upcoming version and ppc-7.2 for the current version? Unless this makes your workflow harder in which case ignore this but the reason I ask is because then it's enough for me to only track ppc-next if I need to rebase patches on that and don't have to add a new branch at every release (unless I have some patches to rebase on it during a freeze but that's less likely than rebasing on your queued patches for the next release xo using version for the current branch and keep next for the future versions makes more sense to me).

BTW, checkpatch complained about this line being too long (83 chars):

3/3 Checking commit bc7b8cc88560 (hw/ppc/e500: Add Freescale eSDHC to e500plat)
WARNING: line over 80 characters
#150: FILE: hw/ppc/e500.c:1024:
+ pmc->ccsrbar_base + MPC85XX_ESDHC_REGS_OFFSET,

The code except is this:

   if (pmc->has_esdhc) {
pmc->ccsrbar_base + MPC85XX_ESDHC_REGS_OFFSET,

To get rid of the warning we would need to make a python-esque identation (line break after "(" ) or create a new variable to hold the sum. Both seems overkill so I'll ignore the warning. Phil is welcome to re-send if he thinks it's worth

Or you could break indentation and not start at the ( but 3 chars back. I.e.:

                         pmc->ccsrbar_base + MPC85XX_ESDHC_REGS_OFFSET,

But I think it can be just ignored in this case.

And I'll follow it up with my usual plea in these cases: can we move the line size warning to 100 chars? For QEMU 8.0? Pretty please?

I think the consensus was to keep 80 columns if possible, this is good becuase you can open more files side by side (although it does not match well with the long _ naming convention of glib and qemu) but we have a distinction between checkpatch warning and error in line length. I think it will give error at 90 chars but as long as it's just warns that means: fix it if you can but in rare cases if it's more readable with a slightly longer line then it is still acceptable. I think that's the case here, splitting the line would be less readable than a few chars longer line.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]