* Benoit Parrot <bparrot@xxxxxx> [171013 11:06]: > Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on Fri [2017-Oct-13 10:05:13 -0700]: > > * Benoit Parrot <bparrot@xxxxxx> [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