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 F2BEF2773DA; Mon, 4 May 2026 09:03:13 +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=1777885395; cv=none; b=qM97SyNQXrRKFtym9z4m1Vyd+CK/KlwHZRr5NWi8NU0MFRaV9r0N2gaVhpBIuRHWwdkETfk7tSq44P5qjW9ZARVmGHYXDYKSyGsOzKvOOCDV4XDsMW3QhbYDrN6my1Lwm5dhpSW/sK/+EHCeelsKBFaND52fK/z6fweuCfT11pc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1777885395; c=relaxed/simple; bh=irh0g1P7JpSUHWQTCo0ly7A4ZjZJ1MDet8QA7O0rCP4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=mJrWlw3/33u2ENwBybLhxEc6SqwHjNrBEplM9kaT6+FjTOSIcXBP9v4iGbcgFjLfbOsZp1+WVg3iJt5kW/aXu33Ue/qURS6693ec17aHCqmn16SIjj/3QwfgDuT24pZ4H0G4aX5ETtkm8z3aJ6OJylFbPhBKEm/lbQ9Y1rwvYpU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=YopujN+V; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.11 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="YopujN+V" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1777885394; x=1809421394; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=irh0g1P7JpSUHWQTCo0ly7A4ZjZJ1MDet8QA7O0rCP4=; b=YopujN+VyPo72iGFSUHAgXQQJbR5saTpQ2cvaZMCkTfe+q3ezWMvF59k W5vSKoyQ3Urntc6OGh1MZ15GR8jmbsEzrknJ0IX7AUCZzJTMxzWiAKej1 7ubhZjYZVV53MzE8YfqEpapUVFzJfYBjN33/4OTk1j7bxyRin4A3k/ydD KT5TkRyPefn3jZU1mq2f+v/Z5srqisdnzs0kllBx0i5oR1eiiKBtws2KU OC1cBU703JPGXd+KyTH3OjUQT1inROf9uOfmaOrpIvAfiCKnorG9+FUYo rpR/Sw6VOpsy/merVj8Iiwz0I7Pv6/JheyntP4PNrzC9BmlNiZ5VVxvWf w==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: Eq7LIO9PT1eHxm0HbEldkw== X-CSE-MsgGUID: ekM3LgYvRKW6h6i2qRdLPQ== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6800,10657,11775"; a="89325222" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.23,215,1770624000"; d="scan'208";a="89325222" Received: from orviesa002.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.142]) by fmvoesa105.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 04 May 2026 02:03:12 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: lQFMajK0RJqShvCzUtsrbQ== X-CSE-MsgGUID: qi7Bqj3wSsCOfYgFLMroLg== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.23,215,1770624000"; d="scan'208";a="265812261" Received: from hrotuna-mobl2.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.245.245.78]) by orviesa002-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 04 May 2026 02:03:11 -0700 Date: Mon, 4 May 2026 12:03:08 +0300 From: Andy Shevchenko To: Joshua Crofts Cc: Jonathan Cameron , David Lechner , Nuno =?iso-8859-1?Q?S=E1?= , Andy Shevchenko , linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 7/8] iio: light: si1133: add local variable for timeout Message-ID: References: <20260430-si1133-checkup-v4-0-fb3e9dce41bf@gmail.com> <20260430-si1133-checkup-v4-7-fb3e9dce41bf@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-iio@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - c/o Alberga Business Park, 6 krs, Bertel Jungin Aukio 5, 02600 Espoo On Mon, May 04, 2026 at 10:59:21AM +0200, Joshua Crofts wrote: > On Mon, 4 May 2026 at 10:53, Andy Shevchenko > wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 30, 2026 at 05:04:27PM +0200, Joshua Crofts via B4 Relay wrote: > > > > > Add local variable for timeout to improve readability. > > > > > > No functional change. > > > > Hmm... I am not sure about this as previously it was one jump and now two jumps > > over the code to get the actual value of the timeout. OTOH, I don't care much > > in this case. > > This was actually a suggestion by Jonathan, as the original indentation > of the function parameters was horrible, so it was better to just add it as > a variable to improve readability. Perhaps I should've added a suggested-by tag. You added it, and I have seen that. Still my opinion stays. Of course, it's up to Jonathan to make the final decision. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko