On 06/05/2018 19:08, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
On Tue, 1 May 2018 10:56:42 -0700
Martin Kelly <mkelly@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Prior to this loop, we check if fifo_count < bytes_per_datum and bail if
so. This means that when we hit the loop, we know that fifo_count >=
bytes_per_datum, so the check is unneeded and we can turn the loop into
a do-while for a slight performance improvement.
Signed-off-by: Martin Kelly <mkelly@xxxxxxxx>
Seems logical to me, but I'd like to give Jean-Baptiste a chance
to comment on this one.
If it looks like we have forgotten about it in a week or so do
give me a poke!
Thanks,
Jonathan
Hello,
no problem for me, looks good. Anyway, I'm planning additionnal changes
that are going to change completely this loop.
JB
---
drivers/iio/imu/inv_mpu6050/inv_mpu_ring.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/iio/imu/inv_mpu6050/inv_mpu_ring.c b/drivers/iio/imu/inv_mpu6050/inv_mpu_ring.c
index 0cb7c20100ca..11593deaaebd 100644
--- a/drivers/iio/imu/inv_mpu6050/inv_mpu_ring.c
+++ b/drivers/iio/imu/inv_mpu6050/inv_mpu_ring.c
@@ -174,7 +174,7 @@ irqreturn_t inv_mpu6050_read_fifo(int irq, void *p)
if (kfifo_len(&st->timestamps) >
fifo_count / bytes_per_datum + INV_MPU6050_TIME_STAMP_TOR)
goto flush_fifo;
- while (fifo_count >= bytes_per_datum) {
+ do {
result = regmap_bulk_read(st->map, st->reg->fifo_r_w,
data, bytes_per_datum);
if (result)
@@ -188,7 +188,7 @@ irqreturn_t inv_mpu6050_read_fifo(int irq, void *p)
iio_push_to_buffers_with_timestamp(indio_dev, data, timestamp);
fifo_count -= bytes_per_datum;
- }
+ } while (fifo_count >= bytes_per_datum);
end_session:
mutex_unlock(&st->lock);
--
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
--
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
