On Tue, 2012-05-22 at 11:26 -0700, David Daney wrote:
> On 05/22/2012 11:17 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-05-22 at 10:59 -0700, David Daney wrote:
> >> From: David Daney<david.daney@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > trivia:
>
> As long as we are splitting hairs...
and zooming in and enhancing...
> >
> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/phy/bcm87xx.c b/drivers/net/phy/bcm87xx.c
> > []
> >> @@ -0,0 +1,237 @@
> >
> >> +static int bcm87xx_of_reg_init(struct phy_device *phydev)
> >> +{
> >> + const __be32 *paddr;
> >> + int len, i, ret;
> >> +
> >> + if (!phydev->dev.of_node)
> >> + return 0;
> >> +
> >> + paddr = of_get_property(phydev->dev.of_node,
> >> + "broadcom,c45-reg-init",&len);
> >> + if (!paddr || len< (4 * sizeof(*paddr)))
> >> + return 0;
> >> +
> >> + ret = 0;
> >> + len /= sizeof(*paddr);
> >> + for (i = 0; i< len - 3; i += 4) {
> >> + u16 devid = be32_to_cpup(paddr + i);
> >> + u16 reg = be32_to_cpup(paddr + i + 1);
> >> + u16 mask = be32_to_cpup(paddr + i + 2);
> >> + u16 val_bits = be32_to_cpup(paddr + i + 3);
> >> + int val;
> >
> > These might read better as
> >
> > len /= 4;
>
> Where did the magic value of 4 come from?
equivalence to the original for loop
for (i = 0; i < len - 3; i += 4) {
> > for (i = 0; i< len; i++) {
> > u16 devid = be32_to_cpu(*paddr++);
> > u16 reg = be32_to_cpu(*paddr++);
> > u16 mask = be32_to_cpu(*paddr++);
> > u16 val_bits = be32_to_cpu(*paddr++);
>
> Is the main problem that they didn't align, or that the index was
> explicit instead of implicit?
There's no real problem, it's just that
i++, be32_to_cpu and *addr++ is a bit
more common and perhaps more easily read.
The alignment's just a visual nicety.
Ignore it if you choose.
cheers, Joe
