From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 17:23:59 -0500
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 09/15] iMX28: Add GPMI NAND driver
In-Reply-To: <201109290012.23189.marek.vasut@gmail.com>
References: <1315800409-19876-1-git-send-email-marek.vasut@gmail.com>	<1315800409-19876-10-git-send-email-marek.vasut@gmail.com>	<4E839115.6000409@freescale.com>
	<201109290012.23189.marek.vasut@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4E839E7F.3030100@freescale.com>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

On 09/28/2011 05:12 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 28, 2011 11:26:45 PM Scott Wood wrote:
>> On 09/11/2011 11:06 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>> +static void mxs_nand_return_dma_descs(struct mxs_nand_info *info)
>>> +{
>>> +	int i = info->desc_index;
>>> +	struct mxs_dma_desc *desc;
>>> +
>>> +	for (--i; i >= 0; i--) {
>>
>> This is an awkward construct.
>>
>> Why not just the usual:
>>
>> for (i = 0; i < info->desc_index; i++)
>>
> 
> Checking the driver, this modifies the global data so this is ok

I don't follow... I'm assuming by "this" you mean the original code
since you didn't change it, so are you saying that the global data has
to be modified in descending order?

If that's really a requirement, put in a comment saying so (and ideally
why), and you could still just do:

for (i = info->desc_index - 1; i >= 0; i--)

or

while (--i >= 0)

-Scott