On Sat, 21 Nov 2015, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tuesday 17 November 2015 09:26:49 Guenter Roeck wrote: > > > > > > This syntax is confusing, as we normally associate it with an error > > > condition. Instead, I'd use: > > > > > > if (of_property_read_u32(np, "bus-width", &bus_width) == 0) > > > > Or maybe better > > > > if (!of_property_read_u32(np, "bus-width", &bus_width)) > > I would also prefer the latter, but it doesn't matter much either way. > > > > > > > Or, for more clarity: > > > > > > of_property_read_u32(np, "bus-width", &bus_width); > > > if (bus_width) > > > > > > If you choose this version (which I think is my preferred method, don't > > > forget to initialise 'bus_width' to zero. > > > > > Ignoring an error and depending on bus_width==0 to determine if the property > > was provided seems odd, especially since it would "hide" if the bus-width > > property is set to 0. In the original code, this would be detected as error. > > Right. > > Another option would be > > ret = of_property_read_u32(np, "bus-width", &bus_width); > /* no bus width provided, default to 32-bit */ > if (ret) > bus_width = 32; > > syscon_config.val_bits = bus_width; > syscon_config.reg_stride = syscon_config.val_bits / 8; > > which has the same effect but seems a little clearer to me. Works for me. -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-watchdog" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
