On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 12:05:23PM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote: > On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 12:55:54PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 10:20 AM Johan Hovold <johan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 08:27:54PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 5:42 PM Johan Hovold <johan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > + ret = kstrtouint(buf, 0, &val); > > > > > + if (ret) > > > > > + return ret; > > > > > > > > > + if (val > 1) > > > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > > > > > > Can't we utilise kstrtobool() instead? > > > > > > I chose not to as kstrtobool() results in a horrid interface. To many > > > options to do the same thing and you end up with confusing things like > > > "0x01" being accepted but treated as false (as only the first character > > > is considered). > > > > And this is perfectly fine. 0x01 is not boolean. > > 0x01 is 1 and is generally treated as boolean true as you know. > > So why should a sysfs-interface accept it as valid input and treat it as > false? That's just bad design. The "design" was to accept "sane" flags here: 1, y, Y mean "enable" 0, n, N mean "disable" We never thought someone would try to write "0x01" as "enable" for a boolean flag :) So it's not a bad design, it works well what it was designed for. It just is NOT designed for hex values. If your sysfs file is "enable/disable", then please, use kstrtobool, as that is the standard way of doing this, and don't expect 0x01 to work :) thanks, greg k-h
