On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 1:50 AM Guenter Roeck <li...@roeck-us.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 12:19:42AM +0200, Max Staudt wrote:
> > On 08/15/2019 02:58 PM, Max Staudt wrote:
> > > - if (of_node) {
> > > - ret = of_property_read_u32_array(of_node, "lltc,meas-mode",
> > > - data->mode, 2);
> > > + if (i2c->dev.of_node || i2c->dev.fwnode) {
I was just going to comment on this check...
> > One more idea, would it be better here to do the following?
> >
> > if (device_property_present(i2c->dev, "lltc,meas-mode")) {
> > ret = of_property_read_u32_array(of_node, "lltc,meas-mode",
> > data->mode, 2);
> > }
> >
> > I'm happy to prepare a patch if you wish to have this in - just let me know
> > whether it should be on top of the last one, or instead of it.
>
> That would be semantically different. The property is currently mandatory.
> The above code would make it optional. This might work:
>
> if (dev_fwnode(&i2c->dev)) {
> ret = device_property_read_u32_array(...);
> ...
> }
Much better, thanks!
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- ge...@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
