On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 21:32:32 -0800
Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 15:33:45 +0100 Haavard Skinnemoen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > + if (i > 0) {
> > + for (i = i - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
> > + led_classdev_unregister(&leds[i].cdev);
> > + pwm_channel_free(&leds[i].pwmc);
> > + }
> > + }
>
> Could be:
>
> while (--i > 0) {
> led_classdev_unregister(&leds[i].cdev);
> pwm_channel_free(&leds[i].pwmc);
> }
>
> or thereabouts.
Almost...we need to clean up for leds[0] too. Using a postfix decrement
should take care of that. How about the patch below?
Haavard
>From de5002ad71a1000f81817410f02a7d9fbd5d4ecd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Haavard Skinnemoen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:14:14 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] PWM led driver: Simplify cleanup loop
Why use a for loop inside an if() when we can get away with a simple
while() loop?
Signed-off-by: Haavard Skinnemoen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
drivers/leds/leds-atmel-pwm.c | 8 +++-----
1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/leds/leds-atmel-pwm.c b/drivers/leds/leds-atmel-pwm.c
index af61f55..187031c 100644
--- a/drivers/leds/leds-atmel-pwm.c
+++ b/drivers/leds/leds-atmel-pwm.c
@@ -100,11 +100,9 @@ static int __init pwmled_probe(struct platform_device
*pdev)
return 0;
err:
- if (i > 0) {
- for (i = i - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
- led_classdev_unregister(&leds[i].cdev);
- pwm_channel_free(&leds[i].pwmc);
- }
+ while (i-- > 0) {
+ led_classdev_unregister(&leds[i].cdev);
+ pwm_channel_free(&leds[i].pwmc);
}
kfree(leds);
--
1.5.3.8
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
