On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 09:34:18AM +0000, Pierre Yves MORDRET wrote:

On 07/21/2017 12:32 PM, Pierre Yves MORDRET wrote:
 >
 >
 > On 07/21/2017 11:54 AM, Vinod Koul wrote:
 >> On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 09:30:00AM +0000, Pierre Yves MORDRET wrote:
 >>>>> +static enum dma_slave_buswidth stm32_mdma_get_max_width(u32 buf_len, u32 
tlen)
 >>>>> +{
 >>>>> +	enum dma_slave_buswidth max_width = DMA_SLAVE_BUSWIDTH_8_BYTES;
 >>>>> +
 >>>>> +	while (((buf_len % max_width) || (tlen < max_width)) &&
 >>>>> +	       (max_width > DMA_SLAVE_BUSWIDTH_1_BYTE))
 >>>>> +		max_width = max_width >> 1;
 >>>>
 >>>> ok, this is a bit hard to read...
 >>>
 >>> This code snippet has already been reworked and optimized. Would you mind to
 >>> provide me a example with your expectation ? Thanks
 >>
 >> Code is optimized yes, but readable no
 >>
 >> I would like readability to be improved upon...
 >>
 >
 > gotcha
 >

Doest he code snippet below has a better looking for you ?

	for (max_width = DMA_SLAVE_BUSWIDTH_8_BYTES;
	     max_width > DMA_SLAVE_BUSWIDTH_1_BYTE; max_width >>= 1)
		if (((buf_len % max_width) == 0) && (tlen >= max_width))
			break;

Am actually not sure :(

Indentation wise it is still a bit messy to follow..

How about:

	for (max_width = DMA_SLAVE_BUSWIDTH_8_BYTES;
			max_width > DMA_SLAVE_BUSWIDTH_1_BYTE;
			max_width >>=1) {
		if (((buf_len % max_width) == 0) && (tlen >= max_width))
			break;
	}

Thanks
-- 
~Vinod