Le Tue, 5 Apr 2022 15:22:51 +0200, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> a écrit : > On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 4:29 PM Clément Léger <clement.leger@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Le Fri, 25 Mar 2022 16:30:45 +0200, > > Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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. Hi Rafael, Agreed, this is way more readable. I'll modify that. Thanks, -- Clément Léger, Embedded Linux and Kernel engineer at Bootlin https://bootlin.com
