On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 01:14:32PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > - int count = 0;
> > + int err, count = 0;
>
> int err = 0, count = 0; will be better and you avoid that err=0 before
> using err right below.
No, the err = 0 I added is in a while loop. It needs to be
reinitialized for each iteration.
> > + if (stat & (OMAP_I2C_STAT_ARDY | OMAP_I2C_STAT_NACK |
> > + OMAP_I2C_STAT_AL))
>
> err should already hold them, how about
> if (stat & err)
err will not hold ARDY, so it would need to be
if (stat & (err | OMAP_I2C_STAT_ARDY))
But I don't see the advantage. Comparing the assembly, what I
submitted generates one less instruction than the above, so the
difference appears to be trivial.
Cheers,
Seth
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
