Shilimkar, Santosh had written, on 06/25/2010 01:07 PM, the following:
-----Original Message-----
From: Menon, Nishanth
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2010 11:02 PM
[..]
--- a/arch/arm/plat-omap/include/plat/cpu.h
+++ b/arch/arm/plat-omap/include/plat/cpu.h
@@ -431,7 +431,18 @@ IS_OMAP_TYPE(3517, 0x3517)
int omap_chip_is(struct omap_chip_id oci);
-void omap2_check_revision(void);
+#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP2PLUS
+extern void omap2_check_revision(void);
+#else
+static inline void omap2_check_revision(void) {}
I think codingstyle suggest empty function braces to be on next line
like
static inline void omap2_check_revision(void)
{}
are you sure about that? can you point me to the documentation for that?
Style I followed is off:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-
2.6.git;a=blob;f=Documentation/SubmittingPatches;h=72651f788f4e3536149ef5e7ddfbed96a8f14d2f;hb=HEAD#l
661
I got similar comment long back and hence remembered. Looks like it's not explicitly documented
changing subject to get folks interested..
i would think that checkpatch should crib about it, but it being an
automated script, could be messed up sometimes..
but I am curious -
static inline void foo(void) { }
static inline int foo(void)
{
return -ENODEV;
}
is the style I have seen to date. usually without a functional code, it
made more sense to have it out of line and more in the style of a normal
function..
could someone give any suggestions on this?
--
Regards,
Nishanth Menon
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
