On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 5:37 PM, Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 17:06:09 +0200
>> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 2:15 AM, Pierre Bourdon <delroth@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Better to address even minors before submission.
>> > + if (itime <= 0 || itime > 255)
>>
>> Just side note: Suprisingly how many in_range() implementations we
>> have in kernel...
> I guess one of those things that is so simple it's not worth having
> one true in_range to rule them all ;)
We have already several implementations of the macro.
>> > +static int bh1730_adjust_gain(struct bh1730_data *bh1730)
>> > +{
>> > + int visible, ir, highest, gain, ret, i;
>>
>> int visible, ir, highest, gain;
>> unsigned int i;
>
> Is there a strong reason for this one that I'm missing?
> (beyond personal taste!)
First of all, I'm far from being fan of mixing int ret into other
variable definitions.
unsigned int i OTOH shows explicitly that we have counter which is not
supposed to be negative.
int i in most of the cases will work, so, it's a minor. I'm not
insisting, though having counter variable on separate line is also a
good thing.
In general, having different things in one line is a bad idea for my opinion.
>> int ret;
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
