On 15/01/2025 17:29, Alexandre Belloni wrote: >> /* >> @@ -252,7 +253,7 @@ static int at91_rtc_proc(struct device *dev, struct seq_file *seq) >> u32 mr = rtt_readl(rtc, MR); >> >> seq_printf(seq, "update_IRQ\t: %s\n", >> - (mr & AT91_RTT_RTTINCIEN) ? "yes" : "no"); >> + str_yes_no(mr & AT91_RTT_RTTINCIEN)); >> return 0; >> } >> >> diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-cmos.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-cmos.c >> index 78f2ce12c75a..1f556cdd778f 100644 >> --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-cmos.c >> +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-cmos.c >> @@ -32,6 +32,7 @@ >> #include <linux/init.h> >> #include <linux/interrupt.h> >> #include <linux/spinlock.h> >> +#include <linux/string_choices.h> >> #include <linux/platform_device.h> >> #include <linux/log2.h> >> #include <linux/pm.h> >> @@ -604,12 +605,12 @@ static int cmos_procfs(struct device *dev, struct seq_file *seq) >> "DST_enable\t: %s\n" >> "periodic_freq\t: %d\n" >> "batt_status\t: %s\n", >> - (rtc_control & RTC_PIE) ? "yes" : "no", >> - (rtc_control & RTC_UIE) ? "yes" : "no", >> - use_hpet_alarm() ? "yes" : "no", >> + str_yes_no(rtc_control & RTC_PIE), >> + str_yes_no(rtc_control & RTC_UIE), >> + str_yes_no(use_hpet_alarm()), >> // (rtc_control & RTC_SQWE) ? "yes" : "no", >> (rtc_control & RTC_DM_BINARY) ? "no" : "yes", > > I guess you missed those two. Yeah, indeed. > However, I'm in favor of ripping the whole procfs out of the kernel > I can send changing these two or skipping procfs parts entirely. Best regards, Krzysztof
