| Message ID | 20230816204143.66281-4-mario.limonciello@amd.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Fix wakeup problems on some AMD platforms | expand |
On 8/16/2023 1:41 PM, Mario Limonciello wrote: > There is no reason for the variables to be pre-incremented. > No intended functional changes. > > Suggested-by: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org> > Signed-off-by: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@amd.com> > --- I think you need to explain bit more in commit log. Otherwise, looks good. Reviewed-by: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com> > drivers/acpi/x86/s2idle.c | 8 ++++---- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/x86/s2idle.c b/drivers/acpi/x86/s2idle.c > index ce62e61a9605e..7711dde68947f 100644 > --- a/drivers/acpi/x86/s2idle.c > +++ b/drivers/acpi/x86/s2idle.c > @@ -123,13 +123,13 @@ static void lpi_device_get_constraints_amd(void) > acpi_handle_debug(lps0_device_handle, > "LPI: constraints list begin:\n"); > > - for (j = 0; j < package->package.count; ++j) { > + for (j = 0; j < package->package.count; j++) { > union acpi_object *info_obj = &package->package.elements[j]; > struct lpi_device_constraint_amd dev_info = {}; > struct lpi_constraints *list; > acpi_status status; > > - for (k = 0; k < info_obj->package.count; ++k) { > + for (k = 0; k < info_obj->package.count; k++) { > union acpi_object *obj = &info_obj->package.elements[k]; > > list = &lpi_constraints_table[lpi_constraints_table_size]; > @@ -214,7 +214,7 @@ static void lpi_device_get_constraints(void) > if (!package) > continue; > > - for (j = 0; j < package->package.count; ++j) { > + for (j = 0; j < package->package.count; j++) { > union acpi_object *element = > &(package->package.elements[j]); > > @@ -246,7 +246,7 @@ static void lpi_device_get_constraints(void) > > constraint->min_dstate = -1; > > - for (j = 0; j < package_count; ++j) { > + for (j = 0; j < package_count; j++) { > union acpi_object *info_obj = &info.package[j]; > union acpi_object *cnstr_pkg; > union acpi_object *obj;
On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 07:42:19PM -0700, Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan wrote: > On 8/16/2023 1:41 PM, Mario Limonciello wrote: ... > Reviewed-by: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan > <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com> It's not the first time your tag gets broken. Can you fix it?
On 8/17/2023 3:10 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 07:42:19PM -0700, Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan wrote: >> On 8/16/2023 1:41 PM, Mario Limonciello wrote: > > ... > >> Reviewed-by: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan >> <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com> > > It's not the first time your tag gets broken. Can you fix it? > Sorry, changed the system recently and did not re-configure the email client settings. I hope it is fixed now. Reviewed-by: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>
On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 08:28:09AM -0700, Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan wrote: > On 8/17/2023 3:10 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 07:42:19PM -0700, Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan wrote: > >> On 8/16/2023 1:41 PM, Mario Limonciello wrote: ... > >> Reviewed-by: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan > >> <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com> > > > > It's not the first time your tag gets broken. Can you fix it? > > > > Sorry, changed the system recently and did not re-configure the email > client settings. I hope it is fixed now. > > Reviewed-by: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com> Seems good to me, thank you!
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/x86/s2idle.c b/drivers/acpi/x86/s2idle.c index ce62e61a9605e..7711dde68947f 100644 --- a/drivers/acpi/x86/s2idle.c +++ b/drivers/acpi/x86/s2idle.c @@ -123,13 +123,13 @@ static void lpi_device_get_constraints_amd(void) acpi_handle_debug(lps0_device_handle, "LPI: constraints list begin:\n"); - for (j = 0; j < package->package.count; ++j) { + for (j = 0; j < package->package.count; j++) { union acpi_object *info_obj = &package->package.elements[j]; struct lpi_device_constraint_amd dev_info = {}; struct lpi_constraints *list; acpi_status status; - for (k = 0; k < info_obj->package.count; ++k) { + for (k = 0; k < info_obj->package.count; k++) { union acpi_object *obj = &info_obj->package.elements[k]; list = &lpi_constraints_table[lpi_constraints_table_size]; @@ -214,7 +214,7 @@ static void lpi_device_get_constraints(void) if (!package) continue; - for (j = 0; j < package->package.count; ++j) { + for (j = 0; j < package->package.count; j++) { union acpi_object *element = &(package->package.elements[j]); @@ -246,7 +246,7 @@ static void lpi_device_get_constraints(void) constraint->min_dstate = -1; - for (j = 0; j < package_count; ++j) { + for (j = 0; j < package_count; j++) { union acpi_object *info_obj = &info.package[j]; union acpi_object *cnstr_pkg; union acpi_object *obj;
There is no reason for the variables to be pre-incremented. No intended functional changes. Suggested-by: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@amd.com> --- drivers/acpi/x86/s2idle.c | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)