never mind -steven
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Mike Frysinger <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 03:19, real mz wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Mike Frysinger <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 23:03, <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> +int portmuxgroup_check(unsigned short per) >>>> +{ >>>> + u16 m, ident, pfunc; >>>> + s8 offset; >>>> + u16 function = P_FUNCT2MUX(per); >>>> + offset = port_mux[P_IDENT(per)]; >>>> + ident = P_IDENT(per); >>>> + for (m = 0; m < ARRAY_SIZE(port_mux); m++) { >>>> + if (m == ident) >>>> + continue; >>>> + if (port_mux[m] == offset) { >>> >>> taking another look at this chunk for the BF537 ... why do you need to >>> loop over the indices of port_mux when you will only ever look at >>> port_mux[m] when m == ident ? isnt the for loop useless when you >>> already know the one index you're going to check ? >> >> port_mux[] can perform index => offset look up, but here I want to get >> the offset => index(pins in one mux group has the same offset), so I >> need a for loop to find the indexes of one group. > > sorry, i'm stupid. i was thinking the code read "if (m != ident)" > when clearly that is not the case. > -mike > _______________________________________________ Linux-kernel-commits mailing list [email protected] https://blackfin.uclinux.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-kernel-commits
