[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200917104941.GP4282@kadam>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 13:49:41 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Daniel Scally <djrscally@...il.com>, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
robh@...nel.org, andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com,
jorhand@...ux.microsoft.com, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kieran.bingham@...asonboard.com, kitakar@...il.com,
bingbu.cao@...el.com, mchehab@...nel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
tian.shu.qiu@...el.com, yong.zhi@...el.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Add bridge driver to connect sensors to CIO2 device
via software nodes on ACPI platforms
On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 01:33:43PM +0300, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> > +static int connect_supported_devices(void)
> > +{
> > + struct acpi_device *adev;
> > + struct device *dev;
> > + struct sensor_bios_data ssdb;
> > + struct sensor *sensor;
> > + struct property_entry *sensor_props;
> > + struct property_entry *cio2_props;
> > + struct fwnode_handle *fwnode;
> > + struct software_node *nodes;
> > + struct v4l2_subdev *sd;
> > + int i, ret;
>
> unsigned int i
>
Why?
For list iterators then "int i;" is best... For sizes then unsigned is
sometimes best. Or if it's part of the hardware spec or network spec
unsigned is best. Otherwise unsigned variables cause a ton of bugs.
They're not as intuitive as signed variables. Imagine if there is an
error in this loop and you want to unwind. With a signed variable you
can do:
while (--i >= 0)
cleanup(&bridge.sensors[i]);
There are very few times where raising the type maximum from 2 billion
to 4 billion fixes anything.
regards,
dan carpenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists