Re: [PATCH RFC 3/3] samples: rust: platform: Add property read examples

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 25.10.2024 23:05, Rob Herring (Arm) wrote:
Add some example usage of the device property read methods for
DT/ACPI/swnode properties.

Signed-off-by: Rob Herring (Arm) <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>


I think that we should mention that this works only with CONFIG_OF_UNITTEST enabled? And/or maybe wrap the whole somehow with

#[cfg(CONFIG_OF_UNITTEST)]

?

---
  drivers/of/unittest-data/tests-platform.dtsi |  3 +++
  samples/rust/rust_driver_platform.rs         | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
  2 files changed, 25 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/of/unittest-data/tests-platform.dtsi b/drivers/of/unittest-data/tests-platform.dtsi
index 2caaf1c10ee6..a5369b9343b8 100644
--- a/drivers/of/unittest-data/tests-platform.dtsi
+++ b/drivers/of/unittest-data/tests-platform.dtsi
@@ -37,6 +37,9 @@ dev@100 {
  			test-device@2 {
  				compatible = "test,rust-device";
  				reg = <0x2>;
+
+				test,u32-prop = <0xdeadbeef>;
+				test,i16-array = /bits/ 16 <1 2 (-3) (-4)>;
  			};
  		};
  	};
diff --git a/samples/rust/rust_driver_platform.rs b/samples/rust/rust_driver_platform.rs
index 5cf4a8f86c13..95c290806862 100644
--- a/samples/rust/rust_driver_platform.rs
+++ b/samples/rust/rust_driver_platform.rs
@@ -41,6 +41,28 @@ fn probe(pdev: &mut platform::Device, info: Option<&Self::IdInfo>) -> Result<Pin
              }
          };
+ let dev = pdev.as_ref();


Maybe move this up and use it in Danilo's part, as well? To stay consistent?

--- a/samples/rust/rust_driver_platform.rs
+++ b/samples/rust/rust_driver_platform.rs
@@ -26,25 +26,25 @@ impl platform::Driver for SampleDriver {

fn probe(pdev: &mut platform::Device, info: Option<&Self::IdInfo>) -> Result<Pin<KBox<Self>>> {
         dev_dbg!(pdev.as_ref(), "Probe Rust Platform driver sample.\n");
+        let dev = pdev.as_ref();

         match (Self::of_match_device(pdev), info) {
             (Some(id), Some(info)) => {
                 dev_info!(
-                    pdev.as_ref(),
+                    dev,
"Probed by OF compatible match: '{}' with info: '{}'.\n",
                     id.compatible(),
                     info.0
                 );
             }
             _ => {
-                dev_info!(pdev.as_ref(), "Probed by name.\n");
+                dev_info!(dev, "Probed by name.\n");
             }
         };

-        let dev = pdev.as_ref();
if let Ok(idx) = dev.property_match_string(c_str!("compatible"), c_str!("test,rust-device"))
         {
- dev_info!(pdev.as_ref(), "matched compatible string idx = {}\n", idx);
+            dev_info!(dev, "matched compatible string idx = {}\n", idx);
         }

         let prop = dev.property_read_bool(c_str!("test,bool-prop"));
@@ -56,12 +56,10 @@ fn probe(pdev: &mut platform::Device, info: Option<&Self::IdInfo>) -> Result<Pin


+        if let Ok(idx) = dev.property_match_string(c_str!("compatible"), c_str!("test,rust-device"))
+        {
+            dev_info!(pdev.as_ref(), "matched compatible string idx = {}\n", idx);
+        }
+
+        let prop = dev.property_read_bool(c_str!("test,bool-prop"));

I stopped reading here with "hey, "test,bool-prop" isn't in the tests-platform.dtsi above, no?". Until I realized that this is intentional to get back false. So whats about adding a comment like

// Intentionally check for an non-existent property to get back false

?


+        dev_info!(dev, "bool prop is {}\n", prop);
+
+        let _prop = dev.property_read::<u32>(c_str!("test,u32-prop"))?;
+        let prop: u32 = dev.property_read(c_str!("test,u32-prop"))?;
+        dev_info!(dev, "'test,u32-prop' is {:#x}\n", prop);
+
+        let prop: [i16; 4] = dev.property_read_array(c_str!("test,i16-array"))?;
+        dev_info!(dev, "'test,i16-array' is {:?}\n", prop);
+        dev_info!(
+            dev,
+            "'test,i16-array' length is {}\n",
+            dev.property_count_elem::<u16>(c_str!("test,i16-array"))
+                .unwrap()


In the error case unwrap() (or expect()) will result in panic(). Besides some very rare cases I don't see a reason why device drivers should panic. Esp. not if reading some array length from the device tree fails ;) So I don't think we should encourage using unwrap() or expect() in drivers by using them even in example code. Which most probably will be copied quite often, then ;)

What's about anything like this instead?

let prop: [i16; 4] = dev.property_read_array(c_str!("test,i16-array"))?;
         dev_info!(dev, "'test,i16-array' is {:?}\n", prop);
-        dev_info!(
-            dev,
-            "'test,i16-array' length is {}\n",
-            dev.property_count_elem::<u16>(c_str!("test,i16-array"))
-                .unwrap()
-        );
+        let len = dev.property_count_elem::<u16>(c_str!("test,i16-array"));
+        if let Ok(length) = len {
+            dev_info!(dev, "'test,i16-array' length is {}\n", length);
+        }

         let drvdata = KBox::new(Self { pdev: pdev.clone() }, GFP_KERNEL)?;

Or if we want a reasonable error message in the error case, as well, we could switch to a match, instead.

Best regards

Dirk



+        );
+
          let drvdata = KBox::new(Self { pdev: pdev.clone() }, GFP_KERNEL)?;
Ok(drvdata.into())






[Index of Archives]     [Device Tree Compilter]     [Device Tree Spec]     [Linux Driver Backports]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux PCI Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Yosemite Backpacking]


  Powered by Linux