On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 11:27:19AM +0100, Charles Keepax wrote: > On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 12:40:37PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 8:44 AM, Lee Jones <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Fri, 11 May 2018, Charles Keepax wrote: > > > > >> + while (true) { > > >> + ret = regmap_read(arizona->regmap, reg, &val); > > >> > > >> + if ((val & mask) == target) > > >> + return 0; > > >> + > > >> + if (ktime_compare(ktime_get(), timeout) > 0) > > >> + break; > > >> + > > >> + usleep_range(ARIZONA_REG_POLL_DELAY_US / 2, > > >> + ARIZONA_REG_POLL_DELAY_US); > > >> + } > > > > >From my point of view infinite loops not good for readability and > > >maintenance. > > Perhaps > > > > do { > > ... > > } while (ktime_compare(...)); > > > > ? > > I would rather not do it that way since then it becomes > impossible to have a single poll with no delays happening. I can > refactor to remove the while(true) but it will make the code a > bit bigger, as I will probably need to duplicate some code > outside the loop. >
Looking again I think it is fine if I do the ktime_compare at the top of the loop though. Will respin. Thanks, Charles
