On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 01:14:32PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > - int count = 0; > > + int err, count = 0; > > int err = 0, count = 0; will be better and you avoid that err=0 before > using err right below. No, the err = 0 I added is in a while loop. It needs to be reinitialized for each iteration. > > + if (stat & (OMAP_I2C_STAT_ARDY | OMAP_I2C_STAT_NACK | > > + OMAP_I2C_STAT_AL)) > > err should already hold them, how about > if (stat & err) err will not hold ARDY, so it would need to be if (stat & (err | OMAP_I2C_STAT_ARDY)) But I don't see the advantage. Comparing the assembly, what I submitted generates one less instruction than the above, so the difference appears to be trivial. Cheers, Seth -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
