Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Message-ID: <1dd04eada63b51d768d568c9f09e59f6afbe963b.camel@perches.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] ARM: imx legacy: cleanups
From:   Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
To:     Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@osadl.org>,
        Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
Cc:     Shawn Guo <shawnguo@kernel.org>,
        Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>,
        Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@pengutronix.de>,
        Fabio Estevam <festevam@gmail.com>,
        NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@nxp.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Janusz Krzysztofik <jmkrzyszt@gmail.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Date:   Sat, 13 Apr 2019 00:58:10 -0700
In-Reply-To: <1555139666-948-1-git-send-email-hofrat@osadl.org>
References: <1555139666-948-1-git-send-email-hofrat@osadl.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.30.1-1build1 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, 2019-04-13 at 09:14 +0200, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> While preparing a proposed fix for a missing check on zmalloc a few
> other checkpatch warnings poped up - this little set fixes those
> warnings. There is one remaining checkpatch warning but that looks
> like a false-positive to me:
> 
> ERROR: Use of __initconst requires a separate use of const
> #171: FILE: arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-mx27ads.c:171:
> +mx27ads_nand_board_info __initconst = {
> 
> The false positive seems due to the definition spanning two lines
> anyway looks good to me
> 
> <snip>
> static const struct mxc_nand_platform_data
> mx27ads_nand_board_info __initconst = {
>         .width = 1,
>         .hw_ecc = 1,
> };

Yeah, it's a false positive.

You could use

static const __initconst etc...

if you really wanted to avoid this but feel free
to ignore checkpatch anyway when it's dumb.