Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756004Ab3HMHPv (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Aug 2013 03:15:51 -0400 Received: from top.free-electrons.com ([176.31.233.9]:58043 "EHLO mail.free-electrons.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754645Ab3HMHPt (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Aug 2013 03:15:49 -0400 Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 09:15:39 +0200 From: Thomas Petazzoni To: Sebastian Hesselbarth Cc: Russell King , Jason Cooper , Andrew Lunn , Bjorn Helgaas , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] PCI: mvebu: increment nports only for registered ports Message-ID: <20130813091539.20d4b6a3@skate> In-Reply-To: <1376333215-12885-3-git-send-email-sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com> References: <1376333215-12885-1-git-send-email-sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com> <1376333215-12885-3-git-send-email-sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com> Organization: Free Electrons X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.1 (GTK+ 2.24.17; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1920 Lines: 62 Dear Sebastian Hesselbarth, On Mon, 12 Aug 2013 20:46:48 +0200, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote: > diff --git a/drivers/pci/host/pci-mvebu.c b/drivers/pci/host/pci-mvebu.c > index d5fe674..0a359d7 100644 > --- a/drivers/pci/host/pci-mvebu.c > +++ b/drivers/pci/host/pci-mvebu.c > @@ -842,21 +842,21 @@ static int __init mvebu_pcie_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > return ret; > } > > + i = 0; > for_each_child_of_node(pdev->dev.of_node, child) { > if (!of_device_is_available(child)) > continue; > - pcie->nports++; > + i++; > } > > - pcie->ports = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, pcie->nports * > + pcie->ports = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, i * > sizeof(struct mvebu_pcie_port), > GFP_KERNEL); > if (!pcie->ports) > return -ENOMEM; > > - i = 0; > for_each_child_of_node(pdev->dev.of_node, child) { > - struct mvebu_pcie_port *port = &pcie->ports[i]; > + struct mvebu_pcie_port *port = &pcie->ports[pcie->nports]; > > if (!of_device_is_available(child)) > continue; > @@ -929,7 +929,7 @@ static int __init mvebu_pcie_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > port->dn = child; > spin_lock_init(&port->conf_lock); > mvebu_sw_pci_bridge_init(port); > - i++; > + pcie->nports++; > } I think I'd prefer using 'i' in this loop, and then after the loop have a: pcie->nports = i; assignment. That's nitpicking, but I don't like the fact that within the loop 'pcie->nports' doesn't mean "Number of enabled PCIe ports", but means "Last enabled PCIe port". Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/