Re: [PATCH] I2C: Fix OMAP I2C status register handling in IRQ processing

[Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 01:14:32PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > -	int count = 0;
> > +	int err, count = 0;
> 
> int err = 0, count = 0; will be better and you avoid that err=0 before
> using err right below.

No, the err = 0 I added is in a while loop.  It needs to be
reinitialized for each iteration.

> > +		if (stat & (OMAP_I2C_STAT_ARDY | OMAP_I2C_STAT_NACK |
> > +					OMAP_I2C_STAT_AL))
> 
> err should already hold them, how about
> if (stat & err)

err will not hold ARDY, so it would need to be

	if (stat & (err | OMAP_I2C_STAT_ARDY))

But I don't see the advantage.  Comparing the assembly, what I
submitted generates one less instruction than the above, so the
difference appears to be trivial.

Cheers,
Seth