From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [192.198.163.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DAFAB22083; Thu, 19 Mar 2026 06:02:24 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.11 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1773900146; cv=none; b=kGt6c2qRf4wolqrW/wqVl8fsQZF0AGvuhDu4WXb8TMo2AKQn4kWNKSYzRKFbq624wnxRXBGWn+cwtqXW7bUbKwU8HHwkkpVYAp0wIDHvqW1XMsYjlmnr2URUJP91tTW/AV9cY+YRx+ghB3NB5r28RCn/+4IBcewxjCQnJI7S7NE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1773900146; c=relaxed/simple; bh=pjHZGYXYiPWB3HEBQne4NQMLRnz83keaN2ens3p7EOY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=Z3zo45nXY7bE3Kc23QioQqh5gOxowov5UmyBKtsPAeSowYsErky6Bg8u9RsbHJrJAb/I/wff/+Twwd5rRb3/TPGB5mQELCSgPUZsnETfLWvgJE8fNzG8jf+ZrujW8mOEXS2e+FlSns+juBGIqc5en2onpoWWXTELFj4gLK2FY0Y= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=Hc2tfJ87; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.11 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="Hc2tfJ87" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1773900145; x=1805436145; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=pjHZGYXYiPWB3HEBQne4NQMLRnz83keaN2ens3p7EOY=; b=Hc2tfJ87yHmVP2qYu1U9Jw/w4GRP7TPpmiR/ybUa4wfRWCCHuJAlqh1I qvJ1Id+x+eP+SShkESiZUgl31um0sc1aFWuhsY2H0wIBdicaFl8CFCraL 1eKXYSb4d3RUAIlmHCLgeCDFP2vPoHFZ1NLhamMzz7NMqMeGAdQQqdZBy iEKLo/lMARKdhecw5hXlCilKSs0Vpxt3bNIm9pI4z67kKiEbCuC5nyWnS WgzUpg7J01v/0FoHrqecRt+oBFi2nlW4fshWWcX6Cv6S4jEcX8Wlx5jWo 3XMWKbCUiUNCHJGrZDYeFymX40bwy73f4AntKGMDp0nEN9nowjvQfZsBd A==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: vqGnEB24QfyQDpAZSqyzIw== X-CSE-MsgGUID: pOxOtgQ9Q7i78XQ3cYwtrQ== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6800,10657,11733"; a="85594587" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.23,128,1770624000"; d="scan'208";a="85594587" Received: from orviesa008.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.148]) by fmvoesa105.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 18 Mar 2026 23:02:24 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: mhJXvmlHSkyKI46nwmpqEw== X-CSE-MsgGUID: 4CxCsPp9SVqBeK8I6ODpCw== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.23,128,1770624000"; d="scan'208";a="222901390" Received: from black.igk.intel.com ([10.91.253.5]) by orviesa008.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 18 Mar 2026 23:02:23 -0700 Received: by black.igk.intel.com (Postfix, from userid 1001) id CC8BC95; Thu, 19 Mar 2026 07:02:21 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2026 07:02:21 +0100 From: Mika Westerberg To: Andy Shevchenko Cc: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andy Shevchenko , Linus Walleij Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 5/5] pinctrl: intel: define iterator variables inside for-loop Message-ID: <20260319060221.GP2275908@black.igk.intel.com> References: <20260318151256.2590375-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> <20260318151256.2590375-6-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260318151256.2590375-6-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> On Wed, Mar 18, 2026 at 04:10:19PM +0100, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > Reduce the scope of the iterator variables by defining them inside > the respective for-loops. This makes code more robust against reuse > of the same variable in the future, which might lead to some mistakes. > > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko > --- > drivers/pinctrl/intel/pinctrl-intel.c | 44 ++++++++++++--------------- > 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/intel/pinctrl-intel.c b/drivers/pinctrl/intel/pinctrl-intel.c > index 7311b787dfc6..c506f9f343c3 100644 > --- a/drivers/pinctrl/intel/pinctrl-intel.c > +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/intel/pinctrl-intel.c > @@ -431,7 +431,6 @@ static int intel_pinmux_set_mux(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev, > { > struct intel_pinctrl *pctrl = pinctrl_dev_get_drvdata(pctldev); > const struct intel_pingroup *grp = &pctrl->soc->groups[group]; > - int i; If there are multiple loops, I prefer to declare the variable outside of them. If it is just a single loop then for (int i = 0, ..) is fine. > > guard(raw_spinlock_irqsave)(&pctrl->lock); > > @@ -439,13 +438,13 @@ static int intel_pinmux_set_mux(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev, > * All pins in the groups needs to be accessible and writable > * before we can enable the mux for this group. > */ > - for (i = 0; i < grp->grp.npins; i++) { > + for (unsigned int i = 0; i < grp->grp.npins; i++) { also why you use "unsigned int". int i is fine here. > if (!intel_pad_usable(pctrl, grp->grp.pins[i])) > return -EBUSY; > }