[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ba9d81bf-f000-f6ae-30b1-3e922985f655@free.fr>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 18:55:09 +0200
From: Cedric Roux <sed@...e.fr>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
Cc: kgene@...nel.org, linux@...linux.org.uk,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
"linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] ARM: s3c24xx: Correct SD card write protect
detection on Mini2440
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.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists