Hi! On 18/04/2024 19:04, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote: > Hi Jiri, Stefan, > > On 4/18/24 4:31 PM, Stefan Berzl wrote: >> >> On 12/04/2024 17:52, Jiri Kosina wrote: >>> On Mon, 1 Apr 2024, Stefan Berzl wrote: >>> >>>> The while in question does nothing except provide the possibility >>>> to have an infinite loop in case the subreport id is actually the same >>>> as the pen id. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Berzl <stefanberzl@xxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> Let me CC Nicolai, the author of the code of question (8b013098be2c9). >> >> I agree that Nicolai's opinion would be invaluable, but even without it, >> the patch is trivially correct. If we have a subreport that matches the >> packet, we change the report_id accordingly. If we then loop back to the >> beginning, either the report_id is different or we are caught in an >> infinite loop. None of these are hardware registers where the access >> itself would matter. > > Yes, Stefan is right. I was trying to implement general rewrite logic, and if > we really had that, then the fix would need to be checking that the new ID is > different. As such there's really no need, and Stefan's fix is fine. > > Only perhaps amend that comment to something like > > /* Change to the (non-pen) subreport ID, and continue */ > > Or at least remove ", and restart". > Will do! I'll send a v2 with the comment updated. Regards
