On 15/11/2023 16:23, Théo Lebrun wrote: > Hello, > > On Wed Nov 15, 2023 at 12:33 PM CET, Roger Quadros wrote: >>> --- a/drivers/usb/cdns3/cdns3-ti.c >>> +++ b/drivers/usb/cdns3/cdns3-ti.c > > [...] > >>> static int cdns_ti_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >>> { >>> struct device *dev = &pdev->dev; >>> struct device_node *node = pdev->dev.of_node; >>> struct cdns_ti *data; >>> - int error; >>> - u32 reg; >>> - int rate_code, i; >>> unsigned long rate; >>> + int error, i; >> >> Should we leave rate_code and get rid of i? > > I see your point about i being usually a temp variable. Using rate_code > instead of i means the for-loop becomes rather long (column 87) & > should ideally be split. > > How about moving the data->usb2_refclk_rate_code assignment up, closer > to the computation of i? That way we don't reference i three blocks > down the road, seemingly out of nowhere. That is much better. Thanks! -- cheers, -roger