| Message ID | 1479257416-29389-3-git-send-email-andre.przywara@arm.com |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Commit | 58eab3287b0ea8e135617d2fb10e09d178d32c89 |
| Delegated to: | Tom Rini |
| Headers | show |
On 16.11.2016 01:50, Andre Przywara wrote: > The indentation is misleading here and suggests that the write command > will be only executed in the else clause. > It seems like this is not intended, so fix the indentation to avoid > both compiler warnings and puzzled readers. > > Pointed out by GCC 6.2's -Wmisleading-indentation warning. > > Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com> Reviewed-by: Stefan Roese <sr@denx.de> Thanks, Stefan
On 11/15/2016 04:52 PM, Andre Przywara wrote: > The indentation is misleading here and suggests that the write command > will be only executed in the else clause. > It seems like this is not intended, so fix the indentation to avoid > both compiler warnings and puzzled readers. > > Pointed out by GCC 6.2's -Wmisleading-indentation warning. > > Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com> > --- > drivers/mtd/cfi_flash.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/cfi_flash.c b/drivers/mtd/cfi_flash.c > index 33c4a93..e036b88 100644 > --- a/drivers/mtd/cfi_flash.c > +++ b/drivers/mtd/cfi_flash.c > @@ -1456,8 +1456,8 @@ static int cfi_protect_bugfix(flash_info_t *info, long sector, int prot) > cmd = FLASH_CMD_PROTECT_SET; > else > cmd = FLASH_CMD_PROTECT_CLEAR; > - flash_write_cmd(info, sector, 0, > - FLASH_CMD_PROTECT); > + > + flash_write_cmd(info, sector, 0, FLASH_CMD_PROTECT); > flash_write_cmd(info, sector, 0, cmd); > /* re-enable interrupts if necessary */ > if (flag) > The new GCC can find this? Nice. York
On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 12:50:06AM +0000, Andre Przywara wrote: > The indentation is misleading here and suggests that the write command > will be only executed in the else clause. > It seems like this is not intended, so fix the indentation to avoid > both compiler warnings and puzzled readers. > > Pointed out by GCC 6.2's -Wmisleading-indentation warning. > > Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com> > Reviewed-by: Stefan Roese <sr@denx.de> Applied to u-boot/master, thanks!
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/cfi_flash.c b/drivers/mtd/cfi_flash.c index 33c4a93..e036b88 100644 --- a/drivers/mtd/cfi_flash.c +++ b/drivers/mtd/cfi_flash.c @@ -1456,8 +1456,8 @@ static int cfi_protect_bugfix(flash_info_t *info, long sector, int prot) cmd = FLASH_CMD_PROTECT_SET; else cmd = FLASH_CMD_PROTECT_CLEAR; - flash_write_cmd(info, sector, 0, - FLASH_CMD_PROTECT); + + flash_write_cmd(info, sector, 0, FLASH_CMD_PROTECT); flash_write_cmd(info, sector, 0, cmd); /* re-enable interrupts if necessary */ if (flag)
The indentation is misleading here and suggests that the write command will be only executed in the else clause. It seems like this is not intended, so fix the indentation to avoid both compiler warnings and puzzled readers. Pointed out by GCC 6.2's -Wmisleading-indentation warning. Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com> --- drivers/mtd/cfi_flash.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)