On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 04:17:54PM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> Am Dienstag, den 01.10.2019, 14:38 +0300 schrieb Mika Westerberg:
> > @@ -1975,10 +1972,8 @@ void tb_switch_suspend(struct tb_switch *sw)
> > if (err)
> > return;
> >
> > - for (i = 1; i <= sw->config.max_port_number; i++) {
> > - if (tb_port_has_remote(&sw->ports[i]))
> > - tb_switch_suspend(sw->ports[i].remote->sw);
> > - }
> > + tb_switch_for_each_remote_port(sw, i)
> > + tb_switch_suspend(sw->ports[i].remote->sw);
>
> This macro looks a bit prone to misunderstanding.
> I guess the function would be better if the test could be seen.
The macro does not really save too many lines so I think I can just drop
this patch for now and keep these open-coded.
