Hi Pavel,
On Monday, May 20, 2019 17:08 Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > > > > +static int rcpm_pm_prepare(struct device *dev) {
> > > > > > + struct device_node *np = dev->of_node;
> > > > > > + struct wakeup_source *ws;
> > > > > > + struct rcpm *rcpm;
> > > > > > + u32 value[RCPM_WAKEUP_CELL_MAX_SIZE + 1], tmp;
> > > > > > + int i, ret;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + rcpm = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> > > > > > + if (!rcpm)
> > > > > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + /* Begin with first registered wakeup source */
> > > > > > + ws = wakeup_source_get_next(NULL);
> > > > > > + while (ws) {
> > > > >
> > > > > while (ws = wakeup_source_get_next(NULL)) ?
> > > >
> > > > Actually, we only pass NULL to wakeup_source_get_next() at very
> > > > first call to get 1st wakeup source. Then in the while loop, we
> > > > will fetch next source but not 1st, that's different. I am afraid
> > > > your suggestion is not quite correct.
> > >
> > > Sorry, I seen your next version before seeing this explanation.
> > >
> > > You are right, but the current code is "interesting". What about
> > >
> > > ws = NULL;
> > > while (ws = wakeup_source_get_next(NULL)) ...
> > >
> > > then?
> >
> > Did you mean:
> > ws = NULL;
> > while (ws = wakeup_source_get_next(ws)) ...
> >
> > Yes, that will be the same to my original logic, do you recommend
> > to change to this? :)
>
> Yes please. It will be less confusing to the reader.
OK, if no other comment, I will work out v4, fix this and extra ','
> Thanks (and sorry for cross-talk),
That's OK, thanks for your time.
Regards,
Ran
