[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180222184348.GE6267@infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 10:43:48 -0800
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Oza Pawandeep <poza@...eaurora.org>
Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@...b.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Kate Stewart <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Dongdong Liu <liudongdong3@...wei.com>,
Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>, Wei Zhang <wzhang@...com>,
Sinan Kaya <okaya@...eaurora.org>,
Timur Tabi <timur@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 6/7] PCI: Unify wait for link active into generic pci
>
> +/**
> + * pci__wait_for_link - Wait for link till its active/inactive
typo - just wants a single underscore.
> + pcie_capability_read_word(pdev, PCI_EXP_LNKSTA, &lnk_status);
> + ret = !!(lnk_status & PCI_EXP_LNKSTA_DLLLA);
no need for the !! when assigning to a boolean.
> +
> + while ((ret != active) && (timeout > 0)) {
No need for either pair of inner braces.
> + msleep(10);
> + timeout -= 10;
> + pcie_capability_read_word(pdev, PCI_EXP_LNKSTA, &lnk_status);
> + ret = !!(lnk_status & PCI_EXP_LNKSTA_DLLLA);
Same as above.
> + }
> +
> + if (ret == active)
> + return true;
Seems like the structure is a bit odd. Why not:
for (;;) {
pcie_capability_read_word(pdev, PCI_EXP_LNKSTA, &lnk_status);
if ((lnk_status & PCI_EXP_LNKSTA_DLLLA) == active)
return true;
if (timeout <= 0)
break;
timeout -= 10;
}
Powered by blists - more mailing lists