From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/13 v4] drm/i915/intel_i2c: handle zero-length writes
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 12:39:12 +0100
Message-ID: <1332934765_126523@CP5-2952>
References: <1332873382-29373-1-git-send-email-djkurtz@chromium.org> <1332873382-29373-9-git-send-email-djkurtz@chromium.org> <1332875657_117263@CP5-2952> <CAGS+omCX+_T9sDbtmdhivn4wb6b8LMGYwKxXak4G_HxeQ1Kfsw@mail.gmail.com>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAGS+omCX+_T9sDbtmdhivn4wb6b8LMGYwKxXak4G_HxeQ1Kfsw@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Daniel Kurtz <djkurtz@chromium.org>
Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>, Keith Packard <keithp@keithp.com>, David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Benson Leung <bleung@chromium.org>, Yufeng Shen <miletus@chromium.org>
List-Id: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org

On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 19:32:27 +0800, Daniel Kurtz <djkurtz@chromium.org> wrote:
> Unfortunately there is a bug in both my original patch (it wasn't
> incrementing loop), and in your suggested cleanup (it always
> decrements len, even when it is already 0... or if the loop test
> fails).  How about the following; despite its pythonic nature, it
> always completes with len holding the number of bytes remaining.
> 
> 	val = loop = 0;
> 	while (len && loop < 4) {
> 		val |= *buf++ << (8 * loop++);
> 		len -= 1;
> 	}

I'm getting over my aversion ;-)

As we are here, have you considered doing an optimised u32 variant whilst
len >= 4, which should be reasonably common during EDID transfer. Though
I am not sure if that loop is merely in the noise compared to the rest of
the mmio.
-Chris

-- 
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre