linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] at91: Support for at91sam9g45: clocks management

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4A2789D2.2000001@atmel.com>
Date:	Thu, 04 Jun 2009 10:46:10 +0200
From:	Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>
To:	Ben Dooks <ben-linux@...ff.org>
CC:	avictor.za@...il.com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.arm.linux.org.uk,
	patrice.vilchez@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] at91: Support for at91sam9g45: clocks management

Ben Dooks :
> On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 10:48:01AM +0200, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
>> Add the at91sam9g45 series support to the AT91 generic clock file.
>> This takes care of the particularities of the PMC for this series.
>> It also takes advantage of the management by functionalities of
>> those PLLs and clocks.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>
> 
> personally, please don't post between open and subscriber only lists,
> this should really only be sent to linux-arm-kernel.

Ah ? Reading SubmittingPatches document, I see in section 6:
"Unless you have a reason NOT to do so, CC linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"

Is posting in "open" and "subscriber only" lists is a reason?


>> ---
>>  arch/arm/mach-at91/clock.c |   62 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>>  1 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-at91/clock.c b/arch/arm/mach-at91/clock.c
>> index bac578f..6396680 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/clock.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/clock.c
>> @@ -47,20 +47,25 @@
>>   * Chips have some kind of clocks : group them by functionality
>>   */
>>  #define cpu_has_utmi()		(  cpu_is_at91cap9() \
> 
> how does this pass checkpatch? no spaces after (.

Well, true, it does not. But, have a look at the result, it is so
prettier with those spaces: cpu_is_ directives are aligned.

It's a matter of taste and I considered breaking the rule here was not
so serious...

Thanks Ben.

Regards,
-- 
Nicolas Ferre

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/