Messages in this thread | | | From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <> | Date | Tue, 5 Apr 2022 15:22:51 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 3/9] device property: add index argument to property_read_string_array() callback |
| |
On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 4:29 PM Clément Léger <clement.leger@bootlin.com> wrote: > > Le Fri, 25 Mar 2022 16:30:45 +0200, > Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.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.
So FWIW I would entirely change it to
if (!val) return of_property_count_strings(node, propname);
return of_property_read_string_array_index(node, propname, val,
nval, index);
which IMO would be way easier to read.
| |