When code uses a pre-increment it makes the reader question "why".
In the constraint fetching code there is no reason for the variables
to be pre-incremented so adjust to post-increment.
No intended functional changes.
Reviewed-by: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Suggested-by: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@xxxxxxx>
---
v12->v13:
* Add tag
* Reword message
---
drivers/acpi/x86/s2idle.c | 8 ++++----
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/x86/s2idle.c b/drivers/acpi/x86/s2idle.c
index ce62e61a9605e..7711dde68947f 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/x86/s2idle.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/x86/s2idle.c
@@ -123,13 +123,13 @@ static void lpi_device_get_constraints_amd(void)
acpi_handle_debug(lps0_device_handle,
"LPI: constraints list begin:\n");
- for (j = 0; j < package->package.count; ++j) {
+ for (j = 0; j < package->package.count; j++) {
union acpi_object *info_obj = &package->package.elements[j];
struct lpi_device_constraint_amd dev_info = {};
struct lpi_constraints *list;
acpi_status status;
- for (k = 0; k < info_obj->package.count; ++k) {
+ for (k = 0; k < info_obj->package.count; k++) {
union acpi_object *obj = &info_obj->package.elements[k];
list = &lpi_constraints_table[lpi_constraints_table_size];
@@ -214,7 +214,7 @@ static void lpi_device_get_constraints(void)
if (!package)
continue;
- for (j = 0; j < package->package.count; ++j) {
+ for (j = 0; j < package->package.count; j++) {
union acpi_object *element =
&(package->package.elements[j]);
@@ -246,7 +246,7 @@ static void lpi_device_get_constraints(void)
constraint->min_dstate = -1;
- for (j = 0; j < package_count; ++j) {
+ for (j = 0; j < package_count; j++) {
union acpi_object *info_obj = &info.package[j];
union acpi_object *cnstr_pkg;
union acpi_object *obj;
--
2.34.1
