From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: sshtylyov@mvista.com (Sergei Shtylyov)
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 16:18:40 +0400
Subject: [PATCH v7 05/15] gpio: fix wrong checking condition for gpio range
In-Reply-To: <1358494279-16503-6-git-send-email-haojian.zhuang@linaro.org>
References: <1358494279-16503-1-git-send-email-haojian.zhuang@linaro.org>
 <1358494279-16503-6-git-send-email-haojian.zhuang@linaro.org>
Message-ID: <50F93DA0.1060708@mvista.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

Hello.

On 18-01-2013 11:31, Haojian Zhuang wrote:

> Since index++ calculates from 0, the checking condition of "while
> (index++)" is always fake. So replace it by unconditional loop.

> Signed-off-by: Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@linaro.org>
> ---
>   drivers/gpio/gpiolib-of.c |    6 +++---
>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-of.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-of.c
> index b1f0682..011e1e98 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-of.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-of.c
> @@ -228,7 +228,7 @@ static void of_gpiochip_add_pin_range(struct gpio_chip *chip)
>   	if (!np)
>   		return;
>
> -	do {
> +	for (;;) {

    Why not:

	for (;; index++) {

>   		ret = of_parse_phandle_with_args(np, "gpio-ranges",
>   				"#gpio-range-cells", index, &pinspec);
>   		if (ret)
> @@ -254,8 +254,8 @@ static void of_gpiochip_add_pin_range(struct gpio_chip *chip)
>
>   		if (ret)
>   			break;
> -
> -	} while (index++);
> +		index++;
> +	}
>   }

WBR, Sergei