[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87wmem76u4.wl-kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2025 23:43:31 +0000
From: Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto.gx@...esas.com>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>
Cc: Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
linux-sound@...r.kernel.org,
linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ASoC: soc-core: Stop using of_property_read_bool() for non-boolean properties
Hi Geert, Mark
Thank you for the patch
> On R-Car:
>
> OF: /sound: Read of boolean property 'simple-audio-card,bitclock-master' with a value.
> OF: /sound: Read of boolean property 'simple-audio-card,frame-master' with a value.
>
> or:
>
> OF: /soc/sound@...00000/ports/port@...ndpoint: Read of boolean property 'bitclock-master' with a value.
> OF: /soc/sound@...00000/ports/port@...ndpoint: Read of boolean property 'frame-master' with a value.
>
> The use of of_property_read_bool() for non-boolean properties is
> deprecated in favor of of_property_present() when testing for property
> presence.
>
> Replace testing for presence before calling of_property_read_u32() by
> testing for an -EINVAL return value from the latter, to simplify the
> code.
>
> Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>
> ---
(snip)
> - if (of_property_read_bool(np, "dai-tdm-slot-num")) {
> - ret = of_property_read_u32(np, "dai-tdm-slot-num", &val);
> - if (ret)
> - return ret;
> -
> - if (slots)
> - *slots = val;
> - }
(snip)
> + ret = of_property_read_u32(np, "dai-tdm-slot-num", &val);
> + if (ret && ret != -EINVAL)
> + return ret;
> + if (!ret && slots)
> + *slots = val;
Looks good to me
Acked-by: Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto.gx@...esas.com>
If my understanding was correct, old/new code should have same behavior.
But because of the original code, new code looks complex for me.
The case which this function return error are
(A) if property does not have a value
(B) if the property data isn't large enough
I think "DT checker" will indicates error for both case ?
If so, we can simply ignore these 2 cases. Then, the code will be more
simple
ret = of_property_read_u32(np, "dai-tdm-slot-num", &val);
- if (ret && ret != -EINVAL)
- return ret;
if (!ret && slots)
*slots = val;
I think this should be extra new patch (if people can agree about it).
Thank you for your help !!
Best regards
---
Kuninori Morimoto
Powered by blists - more mailing lists