Revert "Merge patch series "arm: dts: am62-beagleplay: Fix Beagleplay Ethernet""

When bringing in the series 'arm: dts: am62-beagleplay: Fix Beagleplay
Ethernet"' I failed to notice that b4 noticed it was based on next and
so took that as the base commit and merged that part of next to master.

This reverts commit c8ffd1356d42223cbb8c86280a083cc3c93e6426, reversing
changes made to 2ee6f3a5f7550de3599faef9704e166e5dcace35.

Reported-by: Jonas Karlman <jonas@kwiboo.se>
Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>

board: imgtec: Remove <common.h> and add needed includes

Remove <common.h> from this board vendor directory and when needed
add missing include files directly.

Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>

common: Drop asm/global_data.h from common header

Move this out of the common header and include it only where needed. In
a number of cases this requires adding "struct udevice;" to avoid adding
another large header or in other cases replacing / adding missing header
files that had been pulled in, very indirectly. Finally, we have a few
cases where we did not need to include <asm/global_data.h> at all, so
remove that include.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

SPDX: Convert all of our single license tags to Linux Kernel style

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>

boston: Setup memory ranges in FDT provided to Linux

The boston memory map isn't suited to the simple "all memory starting
from 0" approach that the MIPS arch_fixup_fdt() implementation takes.
Instead we need to indicate the first 256MiB of DDR from 0 and the rest
from 0x90000000. Implement ft_board_setup to do that.

Signed-off-by: Paul Burton <paul.burton@imgtec.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Schwierzeck <daniel.schwierzeck@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

board: imgtec: Remove <common.h> and add needed includes

Remove <common.h> from this board vendor directory and when needed
add missing include files directly.

Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>

common: Drop asm/global_data.h from common header

Move this out of the common header and include it only where needed. In
a number of cases this requires adding "struct udevice;" to avoid adding
another large header or in other cases replacing / adding missing header
files that had been pulled in, very indirectly. Finally, we have a few
cases where we did not need to include <asm/global_data.h> at all, so
remove that include.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

SPDX: Convert all of our single license tags to Linux Kernel style

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>

boston: Setup memory ranges in FDT provided to Linux

The boston memory map isn't suited to the simple "all memory starting
from 0" approach that the MIPS arch_fixup_fdt() implementation takes.
Instead we need to indicate the first 256MiB of DDR from 0 and the rest
from 0x90000000. Implement ft_board_setup to do that.

Signed-off-by: Paul Burton <paul.burton@imgtec.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Schwierzeck <daniel.schwierzeck@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

common: Drop asm/global_data.h from common header

Move this out of the common header and include it only where needed. In
a number of cases this requires adding "struct udevice;" to avoid adding
another large header or in other cases replacing / adding missing header
files that had been pulled in, very indirectly. Finally, we have a few
cases where we did not need to include <asm/global_data.h> at all, so
remove that include.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

common: Drop asm/global_data.h from common header

Move this out of the common header and include it only where needed. In
a number of cases this requires adding "struct udevice;" to avoid adding
another large header or in other cases replacing / adding missing header
files that had been pulled in, very indirectly. Finally, we have a few
cases where we did not need to include <asm/global_data.h> at all, so
remove that include.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

common: Drop asm/global_data.h from common header

Move this out of the common header and include it only where needed. In
a number of cases this requires adding "struct udevice;" to avoid adding
another large header or in other cases replacing / adding missing header
files that had been pulled in, very indirectly. Finally, we have a few
cases where we did not need to include <asm/global_data.h> at all, so
remove that include.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

common: Drop asm/global_data.h from common header

Move this out of the common header and include it only where needed. In
a number of cases this requires adding "struct udevice;" to avoid adding
another large header or in other cases replacing / adding missing header
files that had been pulled in, very indirectly. Finally, we have a few
cases where we did not need to include <asm/global_data.h> at all, so
remove that include.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

common: Drop asm/global_data.h from common header

Move this out of the common header and include it only where needed. In
a number of cases this requires adding "struct udevice;" to avoid adding
another large header or in other cases replacing / adding missing header
files that had been pulled in, very indirectly. Finally, we have a few
cases where we did not need to include <asm/global_data.h> at all, so
remove that include.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

common: Drop asm/global_data.h from common header

Move this out of the common header and include it only where needed. In
a number of cases this requires adding "struct udevice;" to avoid adding
another large header or in other cases replacing / adding missing header
files that had been pulled in, very indirectly. Finally, we have a few
cases where we did not need to include <asm/global_data.h> at all, so
remove that include.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

common: Drop asm/global_data.h from common header

Move this out of the common header and include it only where needed. In
a number of cases this requires adding "struct udevice;" to avoid adding
another large header or in other cases replacing / adding missing header
files that had been pulled in, very indirectly. Finally, we have a few
cases where we did not need to include <asm/global_data.h> at all, so
remove that include.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

common: Drop asm/global_data.h from common header

Move this out of the common header and include it only where needed. In
a number of cases this requires adding "struct udevice;" to avoid adding
another large header or in other cases replacing / adding missing header
files that had been pulled in, very indirectly. Finally, we have a few
cases where we did not need to include <asm/global_data.h> at all, so
remove that include.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

common: Drop asm/global_data.h from common header

Move this out of the common header and include it only where needed. In
a number of cases this requires adding "struct udevice;" to avoid adding
another large header or in other cases replacing / adding missing header
files that had been pulled in, very indirectly. Finally, we have a few
cases where we did not need to include <asm/global_data.h> at all, so
remove that include.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

common: Drop asm/global_data.h from common header

Move this out of the common header and include it only where needed. In
a number of cases this requires adding "struct udevice;" to avoid adding
another large header or in other cases replacing / adding missing header
files that had been pulled in, very indirectly. Finally, we have a few
cases where we did not need to include <asm/global_data.h> at all, so
remove that include.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

common: Drop asm/global_data.h from common header

Move this out of the common header and include it only where needed. In
a number of cases this requires adding "struct udevice;" to avoid adding
another large header or in other cases replacing / adding missing header
files that had been pulled in, very indirectly. Finally, we have a few
cases where we did not need to include <asm/global_data.h> at all, so
remove that include.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

common: Drop asm/global_data.h from common header

Move this out of the common header and include it only where needed. In
a number of cases this requires adding "struct udevice;" to avoid adding
another large header or in other cases replacing / adding missing header
files that had been pulled in, very indirectly. Finally, we have a few
cases where we did not need to include <asm/global_data.h> at all, so
remove that include.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

common: Drop asm/global_data.h from common header

Move this out of the common header and include it only where needed. In
a number of cases this requires adding "struct udevice;" to avoid adding
another large header or in other cases replacing / adding missing header
files that had been pulled in, very indirectly. Finally, we have a few
cases where we did not need to include <asm/global_data.h> at all, so
remove that include.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

common: Drop asm/global_data.h from common header

Move this out of the common header and include it only where needed. In
a number of cases this requires adding "struct udevice;" to avoid adding
another large header or in other cases replacing / adding missing header
files that had been pulled in, very indirectly. Finally, we have a few
cases where we did not need to include <asm/global_data.h> at all, so
remove that include.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

common: Drop asm/global_data.h from common header

Move this out of the common header and include it only where needed. In
a number of cases this requires adding "struct udevice;" to avoid adding
another large header or in other cases replacing / adding missing header
files that had been pulled in, very indirectly. Finally, we have a few
cases where we did not need to include <asm/global_data.h> at all, so
remove that include.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

common: Drop asm/global_data.h from common header

Move this out of the common header and include it only where needed. In
a number of cases this requires adding "struct udevice;" to avoid adding
another large header or in other cases replacing / adding missing header
files that had been pulled in, very indirectly. Finally, we have a few
cases where we did not need to include <asm/global_data.h> at all, so
remove that include.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

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>