[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220328162812.16deac92@fixe.home>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2022 16:28:12 +0200
From: Clément Léger <clement.leger@...tlin.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Daniel Scally <djrscally@...il.com>,
Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>, Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>,
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
Allan Nielsen <allan.nielsen@...rochip.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/9] device property: add index argument to
property_read_string_array() callback
Le Fri, 25 Mar 2022 16:30:45 +0200,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> a écrit :
> > pointer = property_entry_find(props, propname, length);
> > if (IS_ERR(pointer))
> > return PTR_ERR(pointer);
>
> > + if (index >= array_len)
> > + return -ENODATA;
>
> I was about to ask if we can check this before the
> property_entry_find() call, but realized that in such case it will
> shadow possible errors due to wrong or absent property.
I think you are actually right, the check can be done after
property_entry_count_elems_of_size() since it already checks for the
property to be present. I'll move that check.
>
> ...
>
> > - of_property_read_string_array(node, propname, val,
> > nval) :
> > + of_property_read_string_array_index(node,
> > propname, val, nval,
> > + index) :
>
> Dunno about the style there, but I think it can be one line.
Seems like the complete file is strictly applying the 80 columns rules
so I thought it was better to keep it like this. However, I think the
ternary oeprator is not really readable with such split.
--
Clément Léger,
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineer at Bootlin
https://bootlin.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists