Date:   Tue, 21 Dec 2021 02:00:17 -0800
From:   "Leo L. Schwab" <ewhac@ewhac.org>
To:     Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>
Cc:     linux-input@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Input: spaceball - fix parsing of movement data packets
Message-ID: <YcGlsVKeJi7E0dWj@ewhac.org>
References: <20210727040625.2159196-1-ewhac@ewhac.org>
 <YcBF6bnRjYRMp2Cq@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YcBF6bnRjYRMp2Cq@google.com>
Sender:  "Leo L. Schwab" <ewhac@ewhac.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 12:59:21AM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> Could we write
> 
> 			for (i == 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(spaceball_axes); i++)
> 				input_report_abs(dev, spaceball_axes[i],
> 					(__s16)(get_unaligned_be16(&data[i * 2]);
> 
> instead?
>
	It's not as readable, but sure, I could do that.

> 			for (i == 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(spaceball_axes); i++)
  			       ^^
	Pretty sure you didn't mean that :-).

> 				input_report_abs(dev, spaceball_axes[i],
> 					(__s16)(get_unaligned_be16(&data[i * 2]);
  					                                ^^^^^^^
	I'm new here, but it seems odd that an array index (shift plus add
to the base pointer) is preferred over a direct pointer reference.

> 					(__s16)(get_unaligned_be16(&data[i * 2]);
  					        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
	Ooo!  Didn't know about this; thank you!

					Schwab