________________________________________
Von: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
Gesendet: Montag, 24. Februar 2020 12:27
An: Walter Harms
Cc: Colin King; Greg Kroah-Hartman; devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; kernel-janitors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Betreff: Re: [PATCH] staging: rtl8723bs: core: remove redundant zero'ing of counter variable k
On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 11:07:55AM +0000, Walter Harms wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_efuse.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_efuse.c
> index 3b8848182221..bdb6ff8aab7d 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_efuse.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_efuse.c
> @@ -244,10 +244,8 @@ u16 Address)
> while (!(Bytetemp & 0x80)) {
> Bytetemp = rtw_read8(Adapter, EFUSE_CTRL+3);
> k++;
> - if (k == 1000) {
> - k = 0;
> + if (k == 1000)
> break;
> - }
>
> IMHO this is confusing to read, i suggest:
>
> for(k=0;k<1000;k++) {
> Bytetemp = rtw_read8(Adapter, EFUSE_CTRL+3);
> if ( Bytetemp & 0x80 )
> break;
> }
>
The problem with the original code is that the variable is named "k"
instead of "retry". It should be:
do {
Bytetemp = rtw_read8(Adapter, EFUSE_CTRL+3);
} while (!(Bytetemp & 0x80)) && ++retry < 1000);
good point,
personally i try to avoid putting to much into braces, so i
would go for the additional if() but this is for the maintainer.
> NTL is am wondering what will happen if k==1000
> and Bytetemp is still invalid. Will rtw_read8() fail or
> simply return invalid data ?
Yeah. That was my thought reviewing this patch as well.
It should probably return 0xff on failure.
if (retry >= 1000)
return 0xff;
looks nice,
re,
wh
regards,
dan carpenter
