Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 15 Dec 2022 19:44:18 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To:     Kumaravel Thiagarajan <kumaravel.thiagarajan@microchip.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-serial@vger.kernel.org,
        gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, jirislaby@kernel.org,
        ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com, macro@orcam.me.uk, cang1@live.co.uk,
        colin.i.king@gmail.com, phil.edworthy@renesas.com,
        biju.das.jz@bp.renesas.com, geert+renesas@glider.be,
        lukas@wunner.de, u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de, wander@redhat.com,
        etremblay@distech-controls.com, jk@ozlabs.org,
        UNGLinuxDriver@microchip.com,
        Tharun Kumar P <tharunkumar.pasumarthi@microchip.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 tty-next 2/4] serial: 8250_pci1xxxx: Add driver for
 quad-uart support
Message-ID: <Y5tc8mjvxdphtgzj@smile.fi.intel.com>
References: <20221216052656.2098100-1-kumaravel.thiagarajan@microchip.com>
 <20221216052656.2098100-3-kumaravel.thiagarajan@microchip.com>
 <Y5tciHzsEGU67h1Z@smile.fi.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Y5tciHzsEGU67h1Z@smile.fi.intel.com>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 07:42:32PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 10:56:54AM +0530, Kumaravel Thiagarajan wrote:

...

> > +static unsigned int pci1xxxx_get_max_port(int subsys_dev)
> > +{
> > +	int i = 0;
> 
> What the point to assign this one?
> 
> Actually, better is
> 
> 	unsigned int = MAX_PORTS;
> 
> > +	if (subsys_dev < ARRAY_SIZE(logical_to_physical_port_idx))
> 
> > +		for (i = MAX_PORTS - 1; i >= 0; i--)
> 
> while (i--) {
> 
> > +			if (logical_to_physical_port_idx[subsys_dev][i] != -1)
> > +				return logical_to_physical_port_idx[subsys_dev][i] + 1;
> 
> }
> 
> (Note missinng {} in the above code. Does checkpatch complain on this?)
> 
> > +	if (subsys_dev != PCI_SUBDEVICE_ID_EFAR_PCI11414)
> > +		return 1;
> > +
> > +	return 4;

Also you can consider the positive check here:

	if (subsys_dev == PCI_SUBDEVICE_ID_EFAR_PCI11414)
		return 4;

	return 1;

> > +}

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko