Patch Set 1:

Patch Set 1:

Martin, what should we do about formatting disagreements between checkpatch and clang-format (like here)?

We'll need to fix checkpatch.

I disagree. Both objections of checkpatch.pl make sense, and clang-format should follow them, if possible.

View Change

2 comments:

• Commit Message:

  • Patch Set #1, Line 10:

    Could you please add the Clang version, you used for this?

• File src/mainboard/getac/p470/ec_oem.h:

  • Patch Set #1, Line 24:

    // 1: SMI event pending
    #define EC_SMI_EVT (1 << 6)
    
    // 1: SCI event pending
    #define EC_SCI_EVT (1 << 5)
    
    // controller is in burst mode
    #define EC_BURST (1 << 4)
    
    // 1: byte in data register is command
    // 0: byte in data register is data
    #define EC_CMD (1 << 3)
    
    // 1: input buffer full (data ready for ec)
    #define EC_IBF (1 << 1)
    
    // 1: output buffer full (data ready for host)
    #define EC_OBF (1 << 0)
    
    /* EC_SC output */
    #define RD_EC 0x80 // Read Embedded Controller
    #define WR_EC 0x81 // Write Embedded Controller
    #define BE_EC 0x82 // Burst Enable Embedded Controller
    #define BD_EC 0x83 // Burst Disable Embedded Controller
    #define QR_EC 0x84 // Query Embedded Controller
    

    Both blocks should follow the same formatting style. Looks like a clang-format problem.

To view, visit change 31652. To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit settings.