Hello Peng, On Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:16:17 +0200 Luca Ceresoli <luca.ceresoli@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: [...] > > > > > +#define of_property_for_each_u64(np, propname, prop, p, u) \ > > > > > + for (prop = of_find_property(np, propname, NULL), \ > > > > > + p = of_prop_next_u64(prop, NULL, &u); \ > > > > > + p; \ > > > > > + p = of_prop_next_u64(prop, p, &u)) > > > > > > > > I think we want to define this differently to avoid exposing struct > > > > property and the property data directly. Like this: > > > > > > > > #define of_property_for_each_u64(np, propname, u) \ > > > > for (struct property *_prop = of_find_property(np, propname, NULL), > > > > const __be32 *_p = of_prop_next_u64(_prop, NULL, &u); > > > > _p; > > > > _p = of_prop_next_u64(_prop, _p, &u)) > > > > This will trigger a compilation error, because C not allow > > declare two variables with different types as for loop expression 1. > > Need to think about other methods. > > I have a working draft here where I solved it somehow, let me just find > the proper branch and send it. Perhaps next week, but I'm striving to do > that by Mon-Tue. Ok, that slipped to Wednesday, but here it is: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240703-of_property_for_each_u32-v1-1-42c1fc0b82aa@xxxxxxxxxxx/ I think you can reuse the technique I used in that patch to write of_property_for_each_u64(np, propname, u), taking only 3 parameters. Luca -- Luca Ceresoli, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
