It's more straightforward to use for statement here.
Signed-off-by: Axel Lin <[email protected]>
---
drivers/regulator/da9062-regulator.c | 5 +----
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/regulator/da9062-regulator.c b/drivers/regulator/da9062-regulator.c
index 2ffc64622451..5ea8d58d28c5 100644
--- a/drivers/regulator/da9062-regulator.c
+++ b/drivers/regulator/da9062-regulator.c
@@ -966,8 +966,7 @@ static int da9062_regulator_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
regulators->n_regulators = max_regulators;
platform_set_drvdata(pdev, regulators);
- n = 0;
- while (n < regulators->n_regulators) {
+ for (n = 0; n < regulators->n_regulators; n++) {
/* Initialise regulator structure */
regl = ®ulators->regulator[n];
regl->hw = chip;
@@ -1026,8 +1025,6 @@ static int da9062_regulator_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
regl->desc.name);
return PTR_ERR(regl->rdev);
}
-
- n++;
}
/* LDOs overcurrent event support */
--
2.20.1
On 11 July 2019 12:47, Axel Lin wrote:
> To: Steve Twiss; Support Opensource; Liam Girdwood; [email protected]
> Cc: Axel Lin
> Subject: [PATCH] regulator: da9062: Simplify the code iterating all regulators
>
> It's more straightforward to use for statement here.
Thanks Axel,
Acked-by: Steve Twiss <[email protected]>
Regards,
Steve