On 07/31/2013 08:31 AM, Shruti Kanetkar wrote:
Makes the startup output more consistent
Signed-off-by: Shruti Kanetkar Shruti@Freescale.com Acked-by: Andy Fleming afleming@freescale.com
arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc824x/cpu.c | 8 +++----- arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/cpu_init.c | 8 +++++--- arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc8xx/cpu.c | 24 +++++++++++------------- arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc8xxx/ddr/main.c | 3 ++- 4 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
Hello PowerPC Custodians,
These are two simple patches I've been playing with as part of my learning process. I realize that perhaps pieces of these patches should be submitted to their respective custodians, but given their simplicity I'm thinking one of the powerpc custodians can apply them (Andy perhaps) to their tree if nobody objects
I compile-tested these patches on all the mpc8xx and mpc8[356]xxx powerpc boards/targets and I run them on one board each of the following families of SoC(s): MPC8xx, MPC83xx and MPC85xx
Checkpatch has a few warnings like this:
WARNING: space prohibited between function name and open parenthesis '(' #132: FILE: arch/powerpc/cpu/ppc4xx/cpu.c:670:
printf (" 16 KiB I-Cache %d KiB D-Cache",but I simply preserved the existing formating/style in the respective files
Appreciate the cleanup. Please fix the space issue as checkpatch complained. There are many examples of bad style in source code. We should clean them up as much as we can. Thanks.
York