On Friday 17 October 2014 14:14:53 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> +/**
> + * fwnode_property_present - check if a property of a firmware node is present
> + * @fwnode: Firmware node whose property to check
> + * @propname: Name of the property
> + */
> +bool fwnode_property_present(struct fwnode_handle *fwnode, const char *propname)
> +{
> + if (is_of_node(fwnode))
> + return of_property_read_bool(of_node(fwnode), propname);
> + else if (is_acpi_node(fwnode))
> + return !acpi_dev_prop_get(acpi_node(fwnode), propname, NULL);
> +
> + return false;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(fwnode_property_present);
>
Should this be
return acpi_dev_prop_get(acpi_node(fwnode), propname, NULL);
without the '!'?
I'm also unsure about the '_present' vs '_read_bool' naming. IIRC we had
a long debate about this before we decided on 'read_bool' for DT, and
I don't really want to start a new debate, but being consistent would
be nice.
We could of course have
static inline bool fwnode_property_read_bool(struct fwnode_handle *fwnode, const char *propname)
{
return fwnode_property_present(fwnode, propname);
}
which is completely redundant, but would help for drivers using the
interface to document whether we are checking for bool property that
we expect to be either empty or absent (_get_bool), vs checking for
the presence of a non-empty property (_present).
Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
