treewide: Rename PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_NONE to PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_NA

Rename constant PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_NONE to PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_NA to make
it compatible with Linux' naming.

Signed-off-by: Marek Behún <marek.behun@nic.cz>
Reviewed-by: Stefan Roese <sr@denx.de>
Reviewed-by: Ramon Fried <rfried.dev@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.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 linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

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

drivers/net/vsc9953: Initialize action RAM in VCAP complex

VCAP tables must be initialized even if no advanced classification
is used. If no initialization is performed, then ECC error will
be observed by the user when the first packet enters the l2switch.
The error is marked in MPIC_EISR0 -bit 29 which means - Internal RAM
multi-bit ECC error.
This patch fixes the aforementioned ECC error by performing the
initialization of VCAP tables.

Signed-off-by: Radu Bulie <radu-andrei.bulie@nxp.com>
Acked-by: Joe Hershberger <joe.hershberger@ni.com>

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>

drivers: net: vsc9953: Add LAG support

You can now configure LAG on VSC9953's ports using the command:
ethsw [port <port_no>] aggr {[help] | show | <lag_group_no>}

A port must belong to a single LAG. By default, a port
belongs to a LAG equal to the port's number.

For each frame, a hash will be calculated based on
Source/Destination MAC addresses, Source/Destination IP(v4/v6)
addresses, Source/Destination ports. This hash will be used to
select a single egress port from LAG. This also assures
that frames from the same flow will always have the
same egress port.

Signed-off-by: Codrin Ciubotariu <codrin.ciubotariu@freescale.com>
Acked-by: Joe Hershberger <joe.hershberger@ni.com>

drivers: net: vsc9953: Fix FDB aging time

By default, the aging period is set to 0, so the dynamic
FDB entries are never removed. This patch sets the aging
time to 300 seconds.

Signed-off-by: Codrin Ciubotariu <codrin.ciubotariu@freescale.com>
Acked-by: Joe Hershberger <joe.hershberger@ni.com>

drivers: net: vsc9953: Fix number of reserved registers

There are only 21 registers reserved between ana_ana and
ana_pgid register groups.

Signed-off-by: Codrin Ciubotariu <codrin.ciubotariu@freescale.com>
Acked-by: Joe Hershberger <joe.hershberger@ni.com>

drivers/net/vsc9953: Add GPL-2.0+ SPDX-License-Identifier

Signed-off-by: Codrin Ciubotariu <codrin.ciubotariu@freescale.com>
Acked-by: Joe Hershberger <joe.hershberger@ni.com>
Reviewed-by: York Sun <yorksun@freescale.com>

drivers/net/vsc9953: Add command for shared/private VLAN learning

The command:
ethsw vlan fdb { [help] | show | shared | private }
- make VLAN learning shared or private"

configures the FDB to share the FDB entries learned on multiple VLANs
or to keep them separated. By default, the FBD uses private VLAN
learning. This command has also been added to the ethsw generic parser
from common/cmd_ethsw.c

Signed-off-by: Johnson Leung <johnson.leung@freescale.com>
Signed-off-by: Codrin Ciubotariu <codrin.ciubotariu@freescale.com>
Acked-by: Joe Hershberger <joe.hershberger@ni.com>
Reviewed-by: York Sun <yorksun@freescale.com>

drivers/net/vsc9953: Add VLAN commands for VSC9953

The new added commands can be used to configure VLANs for a port
on both ingress and egress.

The new commands are:
ethsw [port <port_no>] pvid { [help] | show | <pvid> }
- set/show PVID (ingress and egress VLAN tagging) for a port;
ethsw [port <port_no>] vlan { [help] | show | add <vid> | del <vid> }
- add a VLAN to a port (VLAN members);
ethsw [port <port_no>] untagged { [help] | show | all | none | pvid }
- set egress tagging mod for a port"
ethsw [port <port_no>] egress tag { [help] | show | pvid | classified }
- Configure VID source for egress tag. Tag's VID could be the
frame's classified VID or the PVID of the port
These commands have also been added to the ethsw generic parser from
common/cmd_ethsw.c

Signed-off-by: Johnson Leung <johnson.leung@freescale.com>
Signed-off-by: Codrin Ciubotariu <codrin.ciubotariu@freescale.com>
Acked-by: Joe Hershberger <joe.hershberger@ni.com>
Reviewed-by: York Sun <yorksun@freescale.com>

drivers/net/vsc9953: Add commands to manipulate the FDB for VSC9953

The new command:
ethsw [port <port_no>] [vlan <vid>] fdb
{ [help] | show | flush | { add | del } <mac> }

Can be used to add and delete FDB entries. Also, the command can be used
to show entries from the FDB tables. When used with [port <port_no>]
and [vlan <vid>], only the matching the FDB entries can be seen or
flushed. The command has also been added to the generic ethsw parser
from cmd_ethsw.c.

Signed-off-by: Johnson Leung <johnson.leung@freescale.com>
Signed-off-by: Codrin Ciubotariu <codrin.ciubotariu@freescale.com>
Acked-by: Joe Hershberger <joe.hershberger@ni.com>
Reviewed-by: York Sun <yorksun@freescale.com>

drivers/net/vsc9953: Add commands to enable/disable HW learning

The command:
ethsw [port <port_no>] learning { [help] | show | auto | disable }

can be used to enable/disable HW learning on a port.
This patch also adds this command to the generic ethsw parser from
cmd_ethsw.

Signed-off-by: Johnson Leung <johnson.leung@freescale.com>
Signed-off-by: Codrin Ciubotariu <codrin.ciubotariu@freescale.com>
Acked-by: Joe Hershberger <joe.hershberger@ni.com>
Reviewed-by: York Sun <yorksun@freescale.com>

drivers/net/vsc9953: Add command to show/clear port counters

The new added command:
ethsw [port <port_no>] statistics { [help] | [clear] }

will print counters like the number of Rx/Tx frames,
number of Rx/Tx bytes, number of Rx/Tx unicast frames, etc.
This patch also adds this commnd in the genereric ethsw
parser from cmd_ethsw.c

Signed-off-by: Codrin Ciubotariu <codrin.ciubotariu@freescale.com>
Acked-by: Joe Hershberger <joe.hershberger@ni.com>
Reviewed-by: York Sun <yorksun@freescale.com>

drivers/net/vsc9953: Add default configuration for VSC9953 L2 Switch

At startup, the default configuration should be:
- enable HW learning on all ports (HW default);
- all ports are VLAN aware;
- all ports are members of VLAN 1;
- all ports have Port-based VLAN 1;
- on all ports, the switch is allowed to remove
maximum one VLAN tag,
- on egress, the switch should add a VLAN tag if the
frame is classified to a different VLAN than the port's
Port-based VLAN;

Signed-off-by: Johnson Leung <johnson.leung@freescale.com>
Signed-off-by: Codrin Ciubotariu <codrin.ciubotariu@freescale.com>
Acked-by: Joe Hershberger <joe.hershberger@ni.com>
Reviewed-by: York Sun <yorksun@freescale.com>

drivers/net/vsc9953: Fix missing reserved register

The VSC9953 DS reserves a register between vlan_mask and anag_efil
registers.

Signed-off-by: Johnson Leung <johnson.leung@freescale.com>
Signed-off-by: Codrin Ciubotariu <codrin.ciubotariu@freescale.com>
Acked-by: Joe Hershberger <joe.hershberger@ni.com>
Reviewed-by: York Sun <yorksun@freescale.com>

drivers/net/vsc9953: Fix bug when enabling a port

When a port is enabled at init time, the initializing function
touches more bits than necessary to enable a port (also touches
reserved bits and default bit values). This patch fixes this issue
by changing the value of the define used to enable the port and
assures that no other bits are changes by replacing out_le32()
with setbits_le32().

Signed-off-by: Codrin Ciubotariu <codrin.ciubotariu@freescale.com>
Acked-by: Joe Hershberger <joe.hershberger@ni.com>
Reviewed-by: York Sun <yorksun@freescale.com>

drivers/net/vsc9953: Cleanup patch

This patch groups some macros defined for registers and
replaces some magic numbers from vsc9953 with macros. Also,
"port" and "port_nr" words are replaced with "port_no",
puts each variable declaration on a line and removes
unnecessary tabs.

Signed-off-by: Codrin Ciubotariu <codrin.ciubotariu@freescale.com>
Acked-by: Joe Hershberger <joe.hershberger@ni.com>
Reviewed-by: York Sun <yorksun@freescale.com>

drivers/net/vsc9953: Remove 'CONFIG_' from macros' name

Signed-off-by: Codrin Ciubotariu <codrin.ciubotariu@freescale.com>
Acked-by: Joe Hershberger <joe.hershberger@ni.com>
Reviewed-by: York Sun <yorksun@freescale.com>

net/vsc9953: Add driver for Vitesse VSC9953 L2 Switch IP

This patch adds a driver for VSC9953 L2 Switch. This Vitesse IP
is integrated in Freescale T1040 and T1020 SoCs.
The L2 switch has 10 Ethernet ports: 2 internal fixed-links
(ports 8 and 9) at 2.5 Gbps and and 8 external ports at 1 Gbps.
The external ports may be connected to PHYs over QSGMII and SGMII.

Commands have also been added to enable/disable a port and to
check a port's link speed, duplexity and status. The commands are:

ethsw port <port_nr> enable|disable - enable/disable an l2 switch port
ethsw port <port_nr> show - show an l2 switch port's configuration

port_nr=0..9; use "all" for all ports

For more detailse please see doc/README.t1040-l2switch

Signed-off-by: Codrin Ciubotariu <codrin.ciubotariu@freescale.com>
Acked-by: Joe Hershberger <joe.hershberger@ni.com>
Reviewed-by: York Sun <yorksun@freescale.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 linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>

common: Drop linux/bitops.h from common header

Move this uncommon header out of the common header.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.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>