From: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Cc: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Andy Shevchenko <andy@kernel.org>,
Linus Walleij <linusw@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 5/5] pinctrl: intel: define iterator variables inside for-loop
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2026 08:09:25 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260319070925.GS2275908@black.igk.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <abuedvr8_FauBMJW@ashevche-desk.local>
On Thu, Mar 19, 2026 at 08:57:58AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2026 at 07:02:21AM +0100, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > 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.
>
> ...
>
> > > - int i;
> >
> > If there are multiple loops, I prefer to declare the variable outside of
> > them.
>
> Why?! It's exactly where it make even more sense to hide.
I disagree.
>
> > If it is just a single loop then for (int i = 0, ..) is fine.
>
> ...
>
> > > - 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.
>
> Because grp.npins is unsigned. This is the common sense to use the same
> variable type that's used for the (upper) limit.
No, just use "int i" there. Compiler is fine and this is more idiomatic C
anyways.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-03-19 7:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-03-18 15:10 [PATCH v1 0/5] pinctrl: intel: capability handling rework Andy Shevchenko
2026-03-18 15:10 ` [PATCH v1 1/5] pinctrl: intel: Improve capability support Andy Shevchenko
2026-03-19 5:57 ` Mika Westerberg
2026-03-19 7:00 ` Andy Shevchenko
2026-03-18 15:10 ` [PATCH v1 2/5] pinctrl: intel: Fix the revision for new features (1kOhm PD, HW debouncer) Andy Shevchenko
2026-03-19 5:58 ` Mika Westerberg
2026-03-19 7:00 ` Andy Shevchenko
2026-03-18 15:10 ` [PATCH v1 3/5] pinctrl: intel: Enable 3-bit PAD_OWN feature Andy Shevchenko
2026-03-19 5:58 ` Mika Westerberg
2026-03-19 7:00 ` Andy Shevchenko
2026-03-18 15:10 ` [PATCH v1 4/5] pinctrl: intel: Refactor intel_gpio_add_pin_ranges() to make it shorter Andy Shevchenko
2026-03-19 6:03 ` Mika Westerberg
2026-03-19 6:56 ` Andy Shevchenko
2026-03-19 7:07 ` Mika Westerberg
2026-03-19 7:18 ` Andy Shevchenko
2026-03-18 15:10 ` [PATCH v1 5/5] pinctrl: intel: define iterator variables inside for-loop Andy Shevchenko
2026-03-19 6:02 ` Mika Westerberg
2026-03-19 6:57 ` Andy Shevchenko
2026-03-19 7:09 ` Mika Westerberg [this message]
2026-03-19 7:20 ` Andy Shevchenko
2026-03-19 10:41 ` Mika Westerberg
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20260319070925.GS2275908@black.igk.intel.com \
--to=mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com \
--cc=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
--cc=andy@kernel.org \
--cc=linusw@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox