On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 12:59:21AM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > Could we write > > for (i == 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(spaceball_axes); i++) > input_report_abs(dev, spaceball_axes[i], > (__s16)(get_unaligned_be16(&data[i * 2]); > > instead? > It's not as readable, but sure, I could do that. > for (i == 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(spaceball_axes); i++) ^^ Pretty sure you didn't mean that :-). > input_report_abs(dev, spaceball_axes[i], > (__s16)(get_unaligned_be16(&data[i * 2]); ^^^^^^^ I'm new here, but it seems odd that an array index (shift plus add to the base pointer) is preferred over a direct pointer reference. > (__s16)(get_unaligned_be16(&data[i * 2]); ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Ooo! Didn't know about this; thank you! Schwab
