On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 2:57 AM Hugo Villeneuve <hugo@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 31 May 2023 00:56:57 +0300 > Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 6:36 PM Hugo Villeneuve <hugo@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue, 30 May 2023 01:38:17 +0300 > > > andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > > Mon, May 29, 2023 at 10:07:09AM -0400, Hugo Villeneuve kirjoitti: ... > > > > > + of_property_for_each_u32(dev->of_node, "nxp,modem-control-line-ports", > > > > > + prop, p, u) { > > > > > + if (u >= devtype->nr_uart) > > > > > + continue; > > > > > + > > > > > + /* Use GPIO lines as modem control lines */ > > > > > + if (u == 0) > > > > > + mctrl_mask |= SC16IS7XX_IOCONTROL_MODEM_A_BIT; > > > > > + else if (u == 1) > > > > > + mctrl_mask |= SC16IS7XX_IOCONTROL_MODEM_B_BIT; > > > > > + } > > > > > > > > Can we use device properties, please? > > > > > > I have converted this section to use device_property_count_u32() and device_property_read_u32_array(). Is that Ok? > > > > Yes, thank you! > > Hi Andy, > now that I am using the device property API, I think I no longer have the need to test for "if (dev->of_node)" before reading the new property "nxp,modem-control-line-ports"? > > If that is the case, I will leave the test "if (dev->of_node)" only for the "irda-mode-ports" property. > > The pseudo code woulk look like this: > > if (dev->of_node) { > struct property *prop; > const __be32 *p; > u32 u; > > of_property_for_each_u32(dev->of_node, "irda-mode-ports", > prop, p, u) > if (u < devtype->nr_uart) > s->p[u].irda_mode = true; > } > > /* Read "nxp,modem-control-line-ports" using device property API. */ > sc16is7xx_setup_mctrl_ports(dev); Looks good to me, thank you for following the advice! -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko