Thank you for your review.
On 12/18/24 18:09, Dan Carpenter wrote:
On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 10:15:20AM +0900, Joe Hattori wrote:
drivers/dma/ti/edma.c | 7 +++----
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/dma/ti/edma.c b/drivers/dma/ti/edma.c
index 343e986e66e7..4ece125b2ae7 100644
--- a/drivers/dma/ti/edma.c
+++ b/drivers/dma/ti/edma.c
@@ -208,7 +208,6 @@ struct edma_desc {
struct edma_cc;
struct edma_tc {
- struct device_node *node;
u16 id;
};
@@ -2460,19 +2459,19 @@ static int edma_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
goto err_reg1;
}
- for (i = 0;; i++) {
+ for (i = 0; i < ecc->num_tc; i++) {
ret = of_parse_phandle_with_fixed_args(node, "ti,tptcs",
1, i, &tc_args);
- if (ret || i == ecc->num_tc)
I feel bad for not saying this earlier, but probably this
"i < ecc->num_tc" change should be done as patch 1/2? It's sort of
related because if we didn't do this then we'd have to do this we'd
have to re-write it to for the i == ecc->num_tc to add another
of_node_put(tc_args.np). But really it needs to be reviewed
separately. It's such a weird thing, that I have to think that it
was done deliberately for some reason although I can't figure out why.
Totally. Separated the loop condition change as 1/2 and the rest as 2/2
in the v3 patch.
The rest of the patch is nice. So much simpler than v1.
Thanks :)
regards,
dan carpenter
Best,
Joe
