On Fri, Aug 09, 2024 at 04:43:51PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Aug 2024, Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > thanks a lot for the bugfix.
> >
> > Am 09.08.24 um 14:33 schrieb Dan Carpenter:
> >> The test for "Link training failed" expect the loop to exit with "i"
> >> set to zero but it exits when "i" is set to -1. Change this from a
> >> post-op to a pre-op so that it exits with "i" set to zero. This
> >> changes the number of iterations from 10 to 9 but probably that's
> >> okay.
> >
> > Yes, that's ok.
> >
> >>
> >> Fixes: 2281475168d2 ("drm/ast: astdp: Perform link training during atomic_enable")
> >> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/gpu/drm/ast/ast_dp.c | 2 +-
> >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ast/ast_dp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/ast/ast_dp.c
> >> index 5d07678b502c..4329ab680f62 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ast/ast_dp.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ast/ast_dp.c
> >> @@ -148,7 +148,7 @@ void ast_dp_link_training(struct ast_device *ast)
> >> struct drm_device *dev = &ast->base;
> >> unsigned int i = 10;
> >>
> >> - while (i--) {
> >> + while (--i) {
> >
> > If this loop ever starts with i = 0, it would break again. Can we use
> >
> > while (i) {
> > --i;
> > ...
> > }
> >
> > instead?
>
> FWIW, I personally *always* use for loops when there isn't a compelling
> reason to do otherwise. You know at a glance that
>
> for (i = 0; i < N; i++)
>
> gets run N times and what i is going to be afterwards.
>
> Sure, you may have to restructure other things, but I think it's almost
> always worth it.
A for statement works here. I need to resend the patch anyway because
the if (i) msleep() code doesn't make sense now.
regards,
dan carpenter
