From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/9] drm/i915: SHUTDOWN & Turn ON packets to
	be	sent for both MIPI Ports in case of dual link Configuration
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 16:39:02 +0300
Message-ID: <87tx3vvmyx.fsf@intel.com>
References: <1411548418-26525-1-git-send-email-gaurav.k.singh@intel.com>
 <1411548418-26525-6-git-send-email-gaurav.k.singh@intel.com>
 <87a95pmkif.fsf@intel.com> <54241078.6040508@linux.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org>
Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20])
 by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56DE36E2F1
 for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 06:39:10 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <54241078.6040508@linux.intel.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/options/intel-gfx>,
 <mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx>
List-Post: <mailto:intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Help: <mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx>,
 <mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org
Sender: "Intel-gfx" <intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org>
To: Shobhit Kumar <shobhit.kumar@linux.intel.com>, Gaurav K Singh <gaurav.k.singh@intel.com>, intel-gfx <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
Cc: Shobhit Kumar <shobhit.kumar@intel.com>
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On Thu, 25 Sep 2014, Shobhit Kumar <shobhit.kumar@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday 24 September 2014 03:02 PM, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Sep 2014, Gaurav K Singh <gaurav.k.singh@intel.com> wrote:
>>> +	do {
>>
>> Please never use a do-while when a regular for loop will do.
>
> Hmm, ok but reasoning ? Point here is that anyway we have to do once for 
> first port and do..while helps maintain that simple flow

Okay, this is subjective. It's my opinion that for doing things N times
in C, the basic for (i = 0; i < N; i++) *is* the paradigm to use. A
sub-second glance at that, and you know what it does. Not so with do {
... } while (--count > 0), particularly when the block has lots of
stuff.

So I'd go with something like:

	for (i = 0; i < intel_dsi->dual_link ? 2 : 1; i++)

where it's immediately obvious that this stuff is done twice for dual
link. Makes sense, right?

BR,
Jani.


-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center