From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com (Sebastian Hesselbarth)
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 11:23:58 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 2/9] PCI: mvebu: increment nports only for registered ports
In-Reply-To: <20130813091539.20d4b6a3@skate>
References: <1376333215-12885-1-git-send-email-sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com>
 <1376333215-12885-3-git-send-email-sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com>
 <20130813091539.20d4b6a3@skate>
Message-ID: <5209FB2E.5020808@gmail.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 08/13/13 09:15, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Dear Sebastian Hesselbarth,
>
> On Mon, 12 Aug 2013 20:46:48 +0200, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
>
>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/host/pci-mvebu.c b/drivers/pci/host/pci-mvebu.c
>> index d5fe674..0a359d7 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pci/host/pci-mvebu.c
>> +++ b/drivers/pci/host/pci-mvebu.c
>> @@ -842,21 +842,21 @@ static int __init mvebu_pcie_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>   		return ret;
>>   	}
>>
>> +	i = 0;
>>   	for_each_child_of_node(pdev->dev.of_node, child) {
>>   		if (!of_device_is_available(child))
>>   			continue;
>> -		pcie->nports++;
>> +		i++;
>>   	}
>>
>> -	pcie->ports = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, pcie->nports *
>> +	pcie->ports = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, i *
>>   				   sizeof(struct mvebu_pcie_port),
>>   				   GFP_KERNEL);
>>   	if (!pcie->ports)
>>   		return -ENOMEM;
>>
>> -	i = 0;
>>   	for_each_child_of_node(pdev->dev.of_node, child) {
>> -		struct mvebu_pcie_port *port = &pcie->ports[i];
>> +		struct mvebu_pcie_port *port = &pcie->ports[pcie->nports];
>>
>>   		if (!of_device_is_available(child))
>>   			continue;
>> @@ -929,7 +929,7 @@ static int __init mvebu_pcie_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>   		port->dn = child;
>>   		spin_lock_init(&port->conf_lock);
>>   		mvebu_sw_pci_bridge_init(port);
>> -		i++;
>> +		pcie->nports++;
>>   	}
>
> I think I'd prefer using 'i' in this loop, and then after the loop have
> a:
>
> 	pcie->nports = i;
>
> assignment. That's nitpicking, but I don't like the fact that within
> the loop 'pcie->nports' doesn't mean "Number of enabled PCIe ports",
> but means "Last enabled PCIe port".

Ok, I'll use 'i' in both loops and assign it like you suggested.

Sebastian