Hi Andy
> >> > +static int cs2000_wait_pll_lock(struct cs2000_priv *priv)
> >> > +{
> >> > + struct device *dev = priv_to_dev(priv);
> >> > + s32 val;
> >> > + unsigned int i;
> >> > +
> >> > + for (i = 0; i < 256; i++) {
> >> > + val = cs2000_read(priv, DEVICE_CTRL);
> >> > + if (val < 0)
> >> > + return val;
> >> > + if (!(val & PLL_UNLOCK))
> >> > + return 0;
> >> > + udelay(1);
> >> > + }
> >>
> >> unsigned int i = 256;
> >>
> >> do {
> >> val = read();
> >> …
> >> while ((val & PLL_UNLOCK) && --i);
> >>
> >> if (!i) {
> >> …
> >> return -EIO;
> >>
> >> Actually -ETIMEDOUT ?
> >>
> >> }
> >
> > What is the motivation of above ?
> > It needs "i" anyway ? it needs to check (val < 0) anyway ?
> > what is the difference between do {} while <-> for(xxx)
>
> Just a style.
> Still the question about error code.
OK. do {} while is not bad, but for () loop
can avoid pointless check I think. I would like to use it.
And yes, next version will use -ETIMEDOUT
> >> > + of_property_read_string(np, "clock-output-names", &name);
> >>
> >> What about device property API?
> >
> > Sorry, which API ?
> > Many other clk-xxx.c are using this style ?
>
> Never mind then.
Thanks
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
