On mercredi 8 janvier 2025 14:32:54 heure normale d’Europe centrale Tomi
Valkeinen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 08/01/2025 15:27, Romain Gantois wrote:
> > 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.
> You got that the wrong way. The driver uses ARRAY_SIZE, but you change
> it to UB960_MAX_PORT_ALIASES...
Yes indeed, I meant the opposite, I'll keep ARRAY_SIZE.
Thanks,
--
Romain Gantois, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
