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;
Received-SPF: Pass (esa6.microchip.iphmx.com: domain of
  Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com designates 198.175.253.82 as
  permitted sender) identity=mailfrom;
  client-ip=198.175.253.82; receiver=esa6.microchip.iphmx.com;
  envelope-from="Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com";
  x-sender="Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com";
  x-conformance=spf_only; x-record-type="v=spf1";
  x-record-text="v=spf1 mx a:ushub1.microchip.com
  a:smtpout.microchip.com -exists:%{i}.spf.microchip.iphmx.com
  include:servers.mcsv.net include:mktomail.com
  include:spf.protection.outlook.com ~all"
Received-SPF: None (esa6.microchip.iphmx.com: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  postmaster@email.microchip.com) identity=helo;
  client-ip=198.175.253.82; receiver=esa6.microchip.iphmx.com;
  envelope-from="Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com";
  x-sender="postmaster@email.microchip.com";
  x-conformance=spf_only
IronPort-SDR: ZgylSdofNOLT9+O4nfnBTGzh0lZchl5ubcHV52U58IzxtLMNJsTayTufomEBLhTaRa/bokeNjq
 ruugRvoZoVLKC30CQakJW3yegClkP2gyArDRzQOnc0oG5nemIpc4trB8J8ITffJmNooGRbse4E
 xjCuLAAqp+UiUjxj0YXDSIRd4yL280/3QH0kPsJrjthBD9db9XoYxNqKxV+3mysnXjIDUdNkCI
 IGOAUsXIWdm6vMiph9LS2ztMMfPkPx2KPg8SqFaHL/KpqdabjC1nYRVv7aLifxXvaqF+7ln35q
 4W4=
From:   <Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com>
To:     <j.neuschaefer@gmx.net>
CC:     <linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>, <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>,
        <richard@nod.at>, <vigneshr@ti.com>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: spi-nor: Simplify loop in spi_nor_read_id()
Thread-Topic: [PATCH] mtd: spi-nor: Simplify loop in spi_nor_read_id()
Thread-Index: AQHV5vtxJe3NG8eq40Gy2BJBFopNWA==
Date:   Fri, 21 Feb 2020 16:50:37 +0000
Message-ID: <5932130.I5bQ6OmJFL@localhost.localdomain>
References: <20200218151034.24744-1-j.neuschaefer@gmx.net>
 <5604429.rq6fcmI4QA@localhost.localdomain> <20200221162248.GG2031@latitude>
In-Reply-To: <20200221162248.GG2031@latitude>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: microchip.com does not designate
 permitted sender hosts)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <EA35E1958B267142BD45C4E4E47D201F@namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 8313fd13-48a0-4d49-f487-08d7b6ee2d49
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 21 Feb 2020 16:50:37.4167
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 3f4057f3-b418-4d4e-ba84-d55b4e897d88
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: 2K3yOFXU8EAT23Qbjs/dqqLm2DfbphDmqvxto3uyIYG1TDu700OUWN3hmmotscF4a+UHXy+PeJVM0PqAQcBFu3OgVLiGx9zq+e0cCbnVG8w=
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MN2PR11MB4695
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Friday, February 21, 2020 6:22:48 PM EET Jonathan Neusch=E4fer wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 08:06:08AM +0000, Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com wro=
te:
> [...]
>=20
> > >  static const struct flash_info *spi_nor_read_id(struct spi_nor *nor)
> > >  {
> > >=20
> > > -       int                     tmp;
> > > +       int                     tmp, i;
> >=20
> > while cleaning this function, would you rename tmp with ret?
>=20
> Good idea, I'll do that in v2.
>=20
> > >         u8                      *id =3D nor->bouncebuf;
> >=20
> > and please drop this tab between u8 and *id
>=20
> The same with the other variables in this functions? They have tabs
> between the type and the pointer star / name as well.

yes, please.

>=20
> > >         const struct flash_info *info;

how about getting rid of this local variable? Use in the function something=
=20
like:

                if (spi_nor_ids[i].id_len &&
                    !memcmp(spi_nor_ids[i].id, id, spi_nor_ids[i].id_len)
                    return &spi_nor_ids[i];

> >=20
> > Also, IMO, the definition of variables should be done with the focus of
> > avoiding stack padding. With this in mind, I would first define the
> > pointers and then the ints and smaller types. But there are others than
> > prefer defining the variables in a tree/reverse-tree way, depending of
> > the length of the line. There's no agreement on this, either way if fin=
e,
> > do as you prefer.
> I have no preference here. I think I'll keep it as is for now.
>=20

Ok. Cheers,
ta