From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751901AbdFTInj (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 20 Jun 2017 04:43:39 -0400
Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:49182 "EHLO
        aserp1040.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751114AbdFTInh (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 20 Jun 2017 04:43:37 -0400
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 11:42:57 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
To: Vivek Gautam <vivek.gautam@codeaurora.org>
Cc: Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@ti.com>,
        Yendapally Reddy Dhananjaya Reddy 
        <yendapally.reddy@broadcom.com>,
        Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        Axel Lin <axel.lin@ingics.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] phy: brcm-sata: fix a timeout test in init
Message-ID: <20170620084257.mr2xzz6lqlmp6rlc@mwanda>
References: <20170619105251.GA23911@elgon.mountain>
 <69b479f4-8939-4c11-2c16-2e188e02a625@codeaurora.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <69b479f4-8939-4c11-2c16-2e188e02a625@codeaurora.org>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
X-Source-IP: userv0022.oracle.com [156.151.31.74]
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 01:56:35PM +0530, Vivek Gautam wrote:
> 
> 
> On 06/19/2017 04:26 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > We want to timeout with try set to zero so this should be a pre-op
> > instead of post-op.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/phy/broadcom/phy-brcm-sata.c b/drivers/phy/broadcom/phy-brcm-sata.c
> > index ccbc3d994998..48fb016ce689 100644
> > --- a/drivers/phy/broadcom/phy-brcm-sata.c
> > +++ b/drivers/phy/broadcom/phy-brcm-sata.c
> > @@ -329,7 +329,7 @@ static int brcm_nsp_sata_init(struct brcm_sata_port *port)
> >   	/* Wait for pll_seq_done bit */
> >   	try = 50;
> > -	while (try--) {
> > +	while (--try) {
> 
> Do we want to try reading the status 50 times? If yes, won't your change
> break that? It will rather run the loop 49 times.
> 

Yeah.  I know.  I'm pretty sure that 50 is a rough number, and not an
exact thing.

regards,
dan carpenter