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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20191009200523.8436-1-stuart.w.hayes@gmail.com>
 <20191009200523.8436-3-stuart.w.hayes@gmail.com> <CAHp75Vc1mZ7qxKPGaqDVAQ9d_UjNq9LJDEPWHQHaYCfw7vGrmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHp75VfNjnAxua6ESx1Vp=57O=pVM10P1UK8bGNQUk7FeY=Dmw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL5oW02uRk-ZLMaE6Skt7rX6xy=sQNttfSZ2N1JRBXPfjJpZNg@mail.gmail.com> <CAHp75VfEpH4Nv0J+wc3vhFWXYgVLcFdOr263dAFRZiz_ZEfZrw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHp75VfEpH4Nv0J+wc3vhFWXYgVLcFdOr263dAFRZiz_ZEfZrw@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 11 Oct 2019 11:48:41 +0300
Message-ID: <CAHp75VeuQ0O9SxveRXqOKoRKQQJNwJ_1WX6taNfgWebiP0KdJA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] PCI: pciehp: Wait for PDS if in-band presence is disabled
To:     Stuart Hayes <stuart.w.hayes@gmail.com>
Cc:     Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
        Austin Bolen <austin_bolen@dell.com>,
        Keith Busch <keith.busch@intel.com>,
        Alexandru Gagniuc <mr.nuke.me@gmail.com>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>,
        "Gustavo A . R . Silva" <gustavo@embeddedor.com>,
        Sinan Kaya <okaya@kernel.org>,
        Oza Pawandeep <poza@codeaurora.org>, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Lukas Wunner <lukas@wunner.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 9:49 AM Andy Shevchenko
<andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 11:37 PM Stuart Hayes <stuart.w.hayes@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Thank you for the feedback!  An infinite loop is used several other places in
> > this driver--this keeps the style similar.  I can change it as you suggest,
> > though, if that would be preferable to consistency.
>
> Better to start the change now. I'll look into the file and see how we
> can improve the rest.

I found only one infinite loop there, the other timeout loop is done
as do {} while.
I'll send a patch to refactor the infinite one.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko