[U-Boot,011/080] clk: clk-uclass: Fix style violations

checkpatch.pl complains that the clk_ops structures used in clk-uclass.c
ought to be static, so we mark them as static.

Signed-off-by: Mario Six <mario.six@gdsys.cc>
---
 drivers/clk/clk-uclass.c | 20 ++++++++++----------
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

On 29 September 2017 at 06:51, Mario Six <mario.six@gdsys.cc> wrote:
> checkpatch.pl complains that the clk_ops structures used in clk-uclass.c
> ought to be static, so we mark them as static.

Do you mean static, or const?

Otherwise:

Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>


>
> Signed-off-by: Mario Six <mario.six@gdsys.cc>
> ---
>  drivers/clk/clk-uclass.c | 20 ++++++++++----------
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk-uclass.c b/drivers/clk/clk-uclass.c
> index 83ba13374c..32be2e85c5 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/clk-uclass.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/clk-uclass.c
> @@ -15,9 +15,9 @@
>
>  DECLARE_GLOBAL_DATA_PTR;
>
> -static inline struct clk_ops *clk_dev_ops(struct udevice *dev)
> +static inline const struct clk_ops *clk_dev_ops(struct udevice *dev)
>  {
> -       return (struct clk_ops *)dev->driver->ops;
> +       return (const struct clk_ops *)dev->driver->ops;
>  }
>
>  #if CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(OF_CONTROL)
> @@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ int clk_get_by_index(struct udevice *dev, int index, struct clk *clk)
>         int ret;
>         struct ofnode_phandle_args args;
>         struct udevice *dev_clk;
> -       struct clk_ops *ops;
> +       const struct clk_ops *ops;
>
>         debug("%s(dev=%p, index=%d, clk=%p)\n", __func__, dev, index, clk);
>
> @@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ int clk_get_by_index(struct udevice *dev, int index, struct clk *clk)
>         clk->dev = NULL;
>
>         ret = dev_read_phandle_with_args(dev, "clocks", "#clock-cells", 0,
> -                                         index, &args);
> +                                        index, &args);
>         if (ret) {
>                 debug("%s: fdtdec_parse_phandle_with_args failed: err=%d\n",
>                       __func__, ret);
> @@ -142,7 +142,7 @@ int clk_release_all(struct clk *clk, int count)
>
>  int clk_request(struct udevice *dev, struct clk *clk)
>  {
> -       struct clk_ops *ops = clk_dev_ops(dev);
> +       const struct clk_ops *ops = clk_dev_ops(dev);
>
>         debug("%s(dev=%p, clk=%p)\n", __func__, dev, clk);
>
> @@ -156,7 +156,7 @@ int clk_request(struct udevice *dev, struct clk *clk)
>
>  int clk_free(struct clk *clk)
>  {
> -       struct clk_ops *ops = clk_dev_ops(clk->dev);
> +       const struct clk_ops *ops = clk_dev_ops(clk->dev);
>
>         debug("%s(clk=%p)\n", __func__, clk);
>
> @@ -168,7 +168,7 @@ int clk_free(struct clk *clk)
>
>  ulong clk_get_rate(struct clk *clk)
>  {
> -       struct clk_ops *ops = clk_dev_ops(clk->dev);
> +       const struct clk_ops *ops = clk_dev_ops(clk->dev);
>
>         debug("%s(clk=%p)\n", __func__, clk);
>
> @@ -180,7 +180,7 @@ ulong clk_get_rate(struct clk *clk)
>
>  ulong clk_set_rate(struct clk *clk, ulong rate)
>  {
> -       struct clk_ops *ops = clk_dev_ops(clk->dev);
> +       const struct clk_ops *ops = clk_dev_ops(clk->dev);
>
>         debug("%s(clk=%p, rate=%lu)\n", __func__, clk, rate);
>
> @@ -192,7 +192,7 @@ ulong clk_set_rate(struct clk *clk, ulong rate)
>
>  int clk_enable(struct clk *clk)
>  {
> -       struct clk_ops *ops = clk_dev_ops(clk->dev);
> +       const struct clk_ops *ops = clk_dev_ops(clk->dev);
>
>         debug("%s(clk=%p)\n", __func__, clk);
>
> @@ -204,7 +204,7 @@ int clk_enable(struct clk *clk)
>
>  int clk_disable(struct clk *clk)
>  {
> -       struct clk_ops *ops = clk_dev_ops(clk->dev);
> +       const struct clk_ops *ops = clk_dev_ops(clk->dev);
>
>         debug("%s(clk=%p)\n", __func__, clk);
>
> --
> 2.11.0
>

Hi Simon,

On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 6:46 AM, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote:
> On 29 September 2017 at 06:51, Mario Six <mario.six@gdsys.cc> wrote:
>> checkpatch.pl complains that the clk_ops structures used in clk-uclass.c
>> ought to be static, so we mark them as static.
>
> Do you mean static, or const?
>

I meant const; I'll fix the commit message and text in v2.

> Otherwise:
>
> Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
>

Best regards,

Mario