On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 11:59:26AM -0800, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> On 4 June 2018 at 18:07, David Gibson <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 11:09:59PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> >> Hi David,
> >>
> >> On 13 September 2017 at 06:42, David Gibson <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 04:42:00AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> >> >> Extend the Properties class with some functions to read a single integer
> >> >> property. Add a new getprop_obj() function to return a Property object
> >> >> instead of the raw data.
> >> >>
> >> >> This suggested approach can be extended to handle other types, as well as
> >> >> arrays.
> >> >>
> >> >> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> >
> >> > Sorry again I've taken so long to respond.
> >> >
> >> > This way of doing it really seems awkward to me. You're introducing a
> >> > clunky variant getter just to wrap the bytearray in an object,
> >> > essentially just to get conversion methods.
> >> >
> >> > It seems to be simpler to just have as_cell() and whatnot as plain
> >> > functions that go straight from bytestring/bytearray to an int or
> >> > whatever.
> >>
> >> I don't really understand this. Which class would as_cell() be a
> >> member of?
> >
> > None. That's what I mean by "plain function". This is Python, not
> > Java, so we're not living in the Kingdom-of-the-Nouns.
> >
> >> Surely it makes sense for these functions to be members of the
> >> Property class, since they act on properties.
> >
> > Not really, they're equally valid on any bytestring... for example one
> > you're building yourself to put into a property but haven't yet.
>
> We end up with:
>
> libfdt.as_uint32(self.get_prop("prop-hex32"))
>
> instead of
>
> self.get_prop("prop-hex32").as_uint32()
>
> I thing the former is shorter and better.
Erm.. I'm guessing you meant to say you think the latter is shorter
and better.
> Can you really imagine a situation where you want to call this
> function on a property you are building? I rather suspect that people
> will use things like setprop_uint32() to set properties directly.
I can.. but then I can imagine a lot of things.
> Anyway, I'm going to send v4 with this change (so far as I understand
> it) and we'll see how it looks. I do think there is a place for the
> functions you want, and we can perhaps consider member functions
> later.
>
> [..]
>
> Regards,
> Simon
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
