Hi Tomi,
On lundi 6 janvier 2025 10:34:10 heure normale d’Europe centrale Tomi
Valkeinen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 30/12/2024 15:22, Romain Gantois wrote:
...
> > @@ -1031,17 +1031,17 @@ static int ub960_atr_attach_client(struct i2c_atr
> > *atr, u32 chan_id,>
> > struct device *dev = &priv->client->dev;
> > unsigned int reg_idx;
> >
> > - for (reg_idx = 0; reg_idx < ARRAY_SIZE(rxport->aliased_clients);
> > reg_idx++) { - if (!rxport->aliased_clients[reg_idx])
> > + for (reg_idx = 0; reg_idx < UB960_MAX_PORT_ALIASES; reg_idx++) {
>
> Any reason to drop the use of ARRAY_SIZE()? Usually when dealing with
> fixed size arrays, it's nicer to use ARRAY_SIZE().
No reason in particular, I just thought it was more explicit to use ARRAY_SIZE
but I'll keep the UB960_MAX_PORT_ALIASES since you think it's nicer.
Thanks,
--
Romain Gantois, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
