It is preferred to use typed property access functions (i.e.
of_property_read_<type> functions) rather than low-level
of_get_property/of_find_property functions for reading properties.
Convert reading boolean properties to to of_property_read_bool().
Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <[email protected]>
---
drivers/mailbox/hi6220-mailbox.c | 5 +----
drivers/mailbox/omap-mailbox.c | 3 +--
2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/mailbox/hi6220-mailbox.c b/drivers/mailbox/hi6220-mailbox.c
index fca61f5312d9..1c73c63598f5 100644
--- a/drivers/mailbox/hi6220-mailbox.c
+++ b/drivers/mailbox/hi6220-mailbox.c
@@ -325,10 +325,7 @@ static int hi6220_mbox_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
writel(~0x0, ACK_INT_CLR_REG(mbox->ipc));
/* use interrupt for tx's ack */
- if (of_find_property(node, "hi6220,mbox-tx-noirq", NULL))
- mbox->tx_irq_mode = false;
- else
- mbox->tx_irq_mode = true;
+ mbox->tx_irq_mode = !of_property_read_bool(node, "hi6220,mbox-tx-noirq");
if (mbox->tx_irq_mode)
mbox->controller.txdone_irq = true;
diff --git a/drivers/mailbox/omap-mailbox.c b/drivers/mailbox/omap-mailbox.c
index 098c82d87137..fd28ac2120df 100644
--- a/drivers/mailbox/omap-mailbox.c
+++ b/drivers/mailbox/omap-mailbox.c
@@ -763,8 +763,7 @@ static int omap_mbox_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
finfo->name = child->name;
- if (of_find_property(child, "ti,mbox-send-noirq", NULL))
- finfo->send_no_irq = true;
+ finfo->send_no_irq = of_property_read_bool(child, "ti,mbox-send-noirq");
if (finfo->tx_id >= num_fifos || finfo->rx_id >= num_fifos ||
finfo->tx_usr >= num_users || finfo->rx_usr >= num_users)
--
2.39.2
On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 08:47:10AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> It is preferred to use typed property access functions (i.e.
> of_property_read_<type> functions) rather than low-level
> of_get_property/of_find_property functions for reading properties.
> Convert reading boolean properties to to of_property_read_bool().
>
> Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/mailbox/hi6220-mailbox.c | 5 +----
> drivers/mailbox/omap-mailbox.c | 3 +--
> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
Ping!
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mailbox/hi6220-mailbox.c b/drivers/mailbox/hi6220-mailbox.c
> index fca61f5312d9..1c73c63598f5 100644
> --- a/drivers/mailbox/hi6220-mailbox.c
> +++ b/drivers/mailbox/hi6220-mailbox.c
> @@ -325,10 +325,7 @@ static int hi6220_mbox_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> writel(~0x0, ACK_INT_CLR_REG(mbox->ipc));
>
> /* use interrupt for tx's ack */
> - if (of_find_property(node, "hi6220,mbox-tx-noirq", NULL))
> - mbox->tx_irq_mode = false;
> - else
> - mbox->tx_irq_mode = true;
> + mbox->tx_irq_mode = !of_property_read_bool(node, "hi6220,mbox-tx-noirq");
>
> if (mbox->tx_irq_mode)
> mbox->controller.txdone_irq = true;
> diff --git a/drivers/mailbox/omap-mailbox.c b/drivers/mailbox/omap-mailbox.c
> index 098c82d87137..fd28ac2120df 100644
> --- a/drivers/mailbox/omap-mailbox.c
> +++ b/drivers/mailbox/omap-mailbox.c
> @@ -763,8 +763,7 @@ static int omap_mbox_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>
> finfo->name = child->name;
>
> - if (of_find_property(child, "ti,mbox-send-noirq", NULL))
> - finfo->send_no_irq = true;
> + finfo->send_no_irq = of_property_read_bool(child, "ti,mbox-send-noirq");
>
> if (finfo->tx_id >= num_fifos || finfo->rx_id >= num_fifos ||
> finfo->tx_usr >= num_users || finfo->rx_usr >= num_users)
> --
> 2.39.2
>
On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 11:25 AM Rob Herring <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 08:47:10AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> > It is preferred to use typed property access functions (i.e.
> > of_property_read_<type> functions) rather than low-level
> > of_get_property/of_find_property functions for reading properties.
> > Convert reading boolean properties to to of_property_read_bool().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > drivers/mailbox/hi6220-mailbox.c | 5 +----
> > drivers/mailbox/omap-mailbox.c | 3 +--
> > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> Ping!
>
Pong :)
I don't usually reply back that it looks good and will pick for the
merge window. I just do that. So yes, it is not overlooked.
cheers
On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 11:36 AM Jassi Brar <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 11:25 AM Rob Herring <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 08:47:10AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > It is preferred to use typed property access functions (i.e.
> > > of_property_read_<type> functions) rather than low-level
> > > of_get_property/of_find_property functions for reading properties.
> > > Convert reading boolean properties to to of_property_read_bool().
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <[email protected]>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/mailbox/hi6220-mailbox.c | 5 +----
> > > drivers/mailbox/omap-mailbox.c | 3 +--
> > > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > Ping!
> >
> Pong :)
>
> I don't usually reply back that it looks good and will pick for the
> merge window. I just do that. So yes, it is not overlooked.
Okay. No reply nor applying it in over a month is not a great
experience for submitters.
Rob
On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 2:06 PM Rob Herring <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 11:36 AM Jassi Brar <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 11:25 AM Rob Herring <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 08:47:10AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > > It is preferred to use typed property access functions (i.e.
> > > > of_property_read_<type> functions) rather than low-level
> > > > of_get_property/of_find_property functions for reading properties.
> > > > Convert reading boolean properties to to of_property_read_bool().
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <[email protected]>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/mailbox/hi6220-mailbox.c | 5 +----
> > > > drivers/mailbox/omap-mailbox.c | 3 +--
> > > > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > Ping!
> > >
> > Pong :)
> >
> > I don't usually reply back that it looks good and will pick for the
> > merge window. I just do that. So yes, it is not overlooked.
>
> Okay. No reply nor applying it in over a month is not a great
> experience for submitters.
>
I sense that. I may be wrong, but I feel any form of ack from a
maintainer demotivates others from looking critically at the
submission. I have seen revisions asked after many weeks of
submission. So my idea is to let a patch roast in public glare. Maybe
I should reply after 2-3weeks.
-j