[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <69b479f4-8939-4c11-2c16-2e188e02a625@codeaurora.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 13:56:35 +0530
From: Vivek Gautam <vivek.gautam@...eaurora.org>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>
Cc: Yendapally Reddy Dhananjaya Reddy <yendapally.reddy@...adcom.com>,
Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Axel Lin <axel.lin@...ics.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] phy: brcm-sata: fix a timeout test in init
On 06/19/2017 04:26 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> We want to timeout with try set to zero so this should be a pre-op
> instead of post-op.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
>
> diff --git a/drivers/phy/broadcom/phy-brcm-sata.c b/drivers/phy/broadcom/phy-brcm-sata.c
> index ccbc3d994998..48fb016ce689 100644
> --- a/drivers/phy/broadcom/phy-brcm-sata.c
> +++ b/drivers/phy/broadcom/phy-brcm-sata.c
> @@ -329,7 +329,7 @@ static int brcm_nsp_sata_init(struct brcm_sata_port *port)
>
> /* Wait for pll_seq_done bit */
> try = 50;
> - while (try--) {
> + while (--try) {
Do we want to try reading the status 50 times? If yes, won't your change
break that? It will rather run the loop 49 times.
Thanks
Vivek
> val = brcm_sata_phy_rd(base, BLOCK0_REG_BANK,
> BLOCK0_XGXSSTATUS);
> if (val & BLOCK0_XGXSSTATUS_PLL_LOCK)
--
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
Powered by blists - more mailing lists