Re: [PATCH] staging: vt6655: Fix line wrapping in rf.c file

[Karolina Drobnik <karolinadrobnik@gmail.com>]

Hi,

Thank you very much for your comments.

On Mon, 2021-10-18 at 17:12 +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> Also, these are all just fine as-is for now.  A better way to make
> these lines smaller is to use better variable and function names 
> that are shorter and make sense :)

I have v2 ready but I'm not sure, given the Joe's patch, if my solution
is a satisfactory one. I didn't jump on such refactoring as I'm still
learning about the codebase/process and didn't want to muddle the
waters (...more than I do already).

Greg, what would you prefer? Should I back up with my patch, pick
something else and let Joe's patch be merged?


Also, I have a question about the patch if that's ok :)

On Mon, 2021-10-18 at 22:56 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> Maybe some refactoring like:
> ---
>  drivers/staging/vt6655/rf.c | 38
> ++++++++++++++++++--------------------
>  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/vt6655/rf.c
> b/drivers/staging/vt6655/rf.c
> index 0dae593c6944f..7beb0cd5a62df 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/vt6655/rf.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/vt6655/rf.c
> @@ -680,16 +680,19 @@ bool RFvWriteWakeProgSyn(struct vnt_private
> *priv, unsigned char byRFType,
>                          u16 uChannel)
>  {
>         void __iomem *iobase = priv->PortOffset;
> -       int   ii;
> +       int i;
> +       unsigned short idx = MISCFIFO_SYNDATA_IDX;
>         unsigned char byInitCount = 0;
>         unsigned char bySleepCount = 0;
> +       const unsigned long *data;
>  
> +       uChannel--;
>         VNSvOutPortW(iobase + MAC_REG_MISCFFNDEX, 0);

I see that you introduced `uChannel--` to further tidy up the lines
with `[uChannel - 1]`. In general, is there anything wrong with
indexing like `i - 1`? What's the preference here? DRY things up as
much as possible?

I'm asking because when I was reading this line, at first, it wasn't
clear to me why we could decrement it (example though: "Was this
modified earlier? Do we need to "correct" it?").


Thanks,
Karolina