[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170620084257.mr2xzz6lqlmp6rlc@mwanda>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 11:42:57 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To: Vivek Gautam <vivek.gautam@...eaurora.org>
Cc: Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>,
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 Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 01:56:35PM +0530, Vivek Gautam wrote:
>
>
> 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.
>
Yeah. I know. I'm pretty sure that 50 is a rough number, and not an
exact thing.
regards,
dan carpenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists