On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 3:14 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Refactor acpi_data_prop_read_single() for less LOCs and better maintenance.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/acpi/property.c | 80 ++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
> 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 46 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/property.c b/drivers/acpi/property.c
> index e312ebaed8db..494cf283a573 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/property.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/property.c
> @@ -785,60 +785,48 @@ static int acpi_data_prop_read_single(const struct acpi_device_data *data,
> enum dev_prop_type proptype, void *val)
> {
> const union acpi_object *obj;
> - int ret;
> + int ret = 0;
>
> - if (proptype >= DEV_PROP_U8 && proptype <= DEV_PROP_U64) {
> + if (proptype >= DEV_PROP_U8 && proptype <= DEV_PROP_U64)
> ret = acpi_data_get_property(data, propname, ACPI_TYPE_INTEGER, &obj);
> - if (ret)
> - return ret;
> -
> - switch (proptype) {
> - case DEV_PROP_U8:
> - if (obj->integer.value > U8_MAX)
> - return -EOVERFLOW;
> -
> - if (val)
> - *(u8 *)val = obj->integer.value;
> -
> - break;
The empty lines of code above are intentional, so please retain them.
> - case DEV_PROP_U16:
> - if (obj->integer.value > U16_MAX)
> - return -EOVERFLOW;
> -
> - if (val)
> - *(u16 *)val = obj->integer.value;
> -
> - break;
> - case DEV_PROP_U32:
> - if (obj->integer.value > U32_MAX)
> - return -EOVERFLOW;
> -
> - if (val)
> - *(u32 *)val = obj->integer.value;
> -
> - break;
> - default:
> - if (val)
> - *(u64 *)val = obj->integer.value;
> -
> - break;
> - }
> -
> - if (!val)
> - return 1;
> - } else if (proptype == DEV_PROP_STRING) {
> + else if (proptype == DEV_PROP_STRING)
> ret = acpi_data_get_property(data, propname, ACPI_TYPE_STRING, &obj);
> - if (ret)
> - return ret;
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
else if (!val)
ret = 1;
>
> + switch (proptype) {
> + case DEV_PROP_U8:
> + if (obj->integer.value > U8_MAX)
> + return -EOVERFLOW;
> + if (val)
> + *(u8 *)val = obj->integer.value;
> + break;
> + case DEV_PROP_U16:
> + if (obj->integer.value > U16_MAX)
> + return -EOVERFLOW;
> + if (val)
> + *(u16 *)val = obj->integer.value;
> + break;
> + case DEV_PROP_U32:
> + if (obj->integer.value > U32_MAX)
> + return -EOVERFLOW;
> + if (val)
> + *(u32 *)val = obj->integer.value;
> + break;
> + case DEV_PROP_U64:
> + if (val)
> + *(u64 *)val = obj->integer.value;
> + break;
> + case DEV_PROP_STRING:
> if (val)
> *(char **)val = obj->string.pointer;
> -
> return 1;
> - } else {
> - ret = -EINVAL;
> + default:
> + return -EINVAL;
> }
> - return ret;
Retain this.
> +
> + /* When no storage provided return number of available values */
> + return val ? 0 : 1;
And this is just not looking good to me, sorry.
> }
>
> static int acpi_copy_property_array_u8(const union acpi_object *items, u8 *val,
> --
