| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:
It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.
Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.
Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:
void foo(bd_t *bd);
This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.
To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>
#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);
Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.
If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:
struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);
Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.
I used coccinelle to generate this commit.
The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:
<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>
Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>
|
|
Move this uncommon header out of the common header.
Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
|
|
Move this uncommon header out of the common header.
Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
|
|
Move this header out of the common header. Network support is used in
quite a few places but it still does not warrant blanket inclusion.
Note that this net.h header itself has quite a lot in it. It could be
split into the driver-mode support, functions, structures, checksumming,
etc.
Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
|
|
Following the example of most other SoCs in arch/$(ARCH)/cpu/$(CPU)/$(SOC)
move the lpc32xx code from arch/arm/cpu/arm926ejs/lpc32xx to
arch/arm/mach-lpc32xx.
Following the checklist from
commit 01f14456306c ("ARM: prepare for moving SoC sources into mach-*"):
[1] move files from arch/arm/cpu/arm926ejs/lpc32xx to arch/arm/mach-lpx32xx
[2] add machine entry to arch/arm/Makefile
[3] remove "obj-y += ..." from arch/arm/cpu/arm926ejs/Makefile
[4] fix the Kconfig file path in arch/arm/Kconfig
[5] (no MAINTAINERS update)
Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Trevor Woerner <twoerner@gmail.com>
|
