[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3ca74ed7-fe54-4ddd-b0ab-5f9eb56e6a09@oss.qualcomm.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2026 14:05:30 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@....qualcomm.com>
To: Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@...wei.com>
Cc: Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@...nel.org>, Niklas Cassel <cassel@...nel.org>,
Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>, Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <nick.desaulniers+lkml@...il.com>,
Bill Wendling <morbo@...gle.com>,
Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com>, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, imx@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, llvm@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] ata: ahci-dwc: Simplify with scoped for each OF child
loop
On 05/01/2026 11:52, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Jan 2026 13:50:41 +0100
> Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@....qualcomm.com> wrote:
>
>> Use scoped for-each loop when iterating over device nodes to make code a
>> bit simpler.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@....qualcomm.com>
>
> A whilst you are here suggestion inline to make it a bit simpler.
>
>> ---
>> drivers/ata/ahci_dwc.c | 7 ++-----
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/ata/ahci_dwc.c b/drivers/ata/ahci_dwc.c
>> index aec6d793f51a..bfd24772ee67 100644
>> --- a/drivers/ata/ahci_dwc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/ata/ahci_dwc.c
>> @@ -260,7 +260,6 @@ static void ahci_dwc_init_timer(struct ahci_host_priv *hpriv)
>> static int ahci_dwc_init_dmacr(struct ahci_host_priv *hpriv)
>> {
>> struct ahci_dwc_host_priv *dpriv = hpriv->plat_data;
>> - struct device_node *child;
>> void __iomem *port_mmio;
>> u32 port, dmacr, ts;
>>
>> @@ -271,14 +270,12 @@ static int ahci_dwc_init_dmacr(struct ahci_host_priv *hpriv)
>> * the HBA global reset so we can freely initialize it once until the
>> * next system reset.
>> */
>> - for_each_child_of_node(dpriv->pdev->dev.of_node, child) {
>> + for_each_child_of_node_scoped(dpriv->pdev->dev.of_node, child) {
>> if (!of_device_is_available(child))
>
> for_each_available_child_of_node_scoped()?
Huh, indeed I did not notice it. Thanks!
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists