Re: [PATCH v5] clk: add CS2000 Fractional-N driver

[Kuninori Morimoto]

Hi Andy

> >> > +static int cs2000_wait_pll_lock(struct cs2000_priv *priv)
> >> > +{
> >> > +       struct device *dev = priv_to_dev(priv);
> >> > +       s32 val;
> >> > +       unsigned int i;
> >> > +
> >> > +       for (i = 0; i < 256; i++) {
> >> > +               val = cs2000_read(priv, DEVICE_CTRL);
> >> > +               if (val < 0)
> >> > +                       return val;
> >> > +               if (!(val & PLL_UNLOCK))
> >> > +                       return 0;
> >> > +               udelay(1);
> >> > +       }
> >>
> >> unsigned int i = 256;
> >>
> >> do {
> >> val = read();
> >> …
> >> while ((val & PLL_UNLOCK) && --i);
> >>
> >> if (!i) {
> >>  …
> >>  return -EIO;
> >>
> >> Actually -ETIMEDOUT ?
> >>
> >> }
> >
> > What is the motivation of above ?
> > It needs "i" anyway ? it needs to check (val < 0) anyway ?
> > what is the difference between do {} while <-> for(xxx)
> 
> Just a style.
> Still the question about error code.

OK. do {} while is not bad, but for () loop
can avoid pointless check I think. I would like to use it.
And yes, next version will use -ETIMEDOUT

> >> > +       of_property_read_string(np, "clock-output-names", &name);
> >>
> >> What about device property API?
> >
> > Sorry, which API ?
> > Many other clk-xxx.c are using this style ?
> 
> Never mind then.

Thanks
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/