Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org E2C382178D
Date:   Sat, 3 Mar 2018 16:15:07 +0000
From:   Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Cc:     Pierre Bourdon <delroth@google.com>,
        Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@gmx.de>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>,
        Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@pmeerw.net>,
        linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        devicetree <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] iio: light: add driver for bh1730fvc chips
Message-ID: <20180303161507.2f60345f@archlinux>
In-Reply-To: <CAHp75VeEXdUMw2Skr=jDjUL+Rz=Xu-0S3Mw-X6MvjAXet974hw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20180228001525.96044-1-delroth@google.com>
        <CAHp75VfEaaJfREj5jBk7uwr2aRL96JN4Co=tir9Foy6L9=_o8A@mail.gmail.com>
        <20180303153723.40773aae@archlinux>
        <CAHp75VeEXdUMw2Skr=jDjUL+Rz=Xu-0S3Mw-X6MvjAXet974hw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, 3 Mar 2018 17:44:44 +0200
Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 5:37 PM, Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 17:06:09 +0200  
> >> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 2:15 AM, Pierre Bourdon <delroth@google.com> wrote:  
> 
> Better to address even minors before submission.

Absolutely.

> 
> >> > +       if (itime <= 0 || itime > 255)  
> >>
> >> Just side note: Suprisingly how many in_range() implementations we
> >> have in kernel...  
> > I guess one of those things that is so simple it's not worth having
> > one true in_range to rule them all ;)  
> 
> We have already several implementations of the macro.
> 
> >> > +static int bh1730_adjust_gain(struct bh1730_data *bh1730)
> >> > +{
> >> > +       int visible, ir, highest, gain, ret, i;  
> >>
> >> int visible, ir, highest, gain;
> >> unsigned int i;  
> >
> > Is there a strong reason for this one that I'm missing?
> > (beyond personal taste!)  
> 
> First of all, I'm far from being fan of mixing int ret into other
> variable definitions.
> 
> unsigned int i OTOH shows explicitly that we have counter which is not
> supposed to be negative.
Given it's specifically indexing over an enum (which can have any definition
it likes) I wouldn't normally care, but fair enough.

> 
> int i in most of the cases will work, so, it's a minor. I'm not
> insisting, though having counter variable on separate line is also a
> good thing.
> 
> In general, having different things in one line is a bad idea for my opinion.
Agreed.

> 
> >> int ret;  
>