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>
A number of board function belong in init.h with the others. Move them.
Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>
The Special Function Registers (SFR) are present in sam9x5 and
sam9x60 too, rename sama5_sfr to at91_sfr.h.
Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com>
When U-Boot started using SPDX tags we were among the early adopters and
there weren't a lot of other examples to borrow from. So we picked the
area of the file that usually had a full license text and replaced it
with an appropriate SPDX-License-Identifier: entry. Since then, the
Linux Kernel has adopted SPDX tags and they place it as the very first
line in a file (except where shebangs are used, then it's second line)
and with slightly different comment styles than us.
In part due to community overlap, in part due to better tag visibility
and in part for other minor reasons, switch over to that style.
This commit changes all instances where we have a single declared
license in the tag as both the before and after are identical in tag
contents. There's also a few places where I found we did not have a tag
and have introduced one.
Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>
This board is based on the Atmel sama5d3 eval boards.
Supporting the following features:
- Boot from NAND Flash
- Ethernet
- FIT
- SPL
Signed-off-by: Ben Whitten <ben.whitten@lairdtech.com>
Signed-off-by: Dan Kephart <dan.kephart@lairdtech.com>
This board is based on the Atmel 9x5 eval board.
Supporting the following features:
- Boot from NAND Flash
- Ethernet
- FIT
- SPL
Signed-off-by: Ben Whitten <ben.whitten@lairdtech.com>
Signed-off-by: Dan Kephart <dan.kephart@lairdtech.com>
