From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from galahad.ideasonboard.com ([185.26.127.97]:43100 "EHLO galahad.ideasonboard.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757810AbdEVNXn (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 May 2017 09:23:43 -0400 From: Laurent Pinchart To: Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: Kieran Bingham , Laurent Pinchart , DRI Development , Linux-Renesas Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] drm: rcar-du: Map memory through the VSP device Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 16:23:58 +0300 Message-ID: <1878179.RM5CVv0lR3@avalon> In-Reply-To: References: <20170516232007.20980-1-laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: linux-renesas-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hello Geert and Kieran, On Monday 22 May 2017 15:00:27 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Kieran Bingham wrote: > > My only distaste there is having to then add the [i-1] index to the > > sg_tables. > > > > I have just experimented with: > > > > fail: > > for (; i-- != 0;) { > > struct sg_table *sgt = &rstate->sg_tables[i]; > > ... > > } > > > > This performs the correct loops, with the correct indexes, but does the > > decrement in the condition offend coding styles ? > > > > If that's disliked even more I'll just apply your suggestion. > > You can still use "i-- > 0", which looks a little bit better IMHO. I'm fine with that option too. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart