Re: [PATCH] Input: tl6040-vibra: Device Tree support
From: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>
Date: 2012-05-07 15:48:34
Also in:
linux-input, lkml
On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 01:49:29PM +0300, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
Hi Dmitry, On 05/07/2012 10:02 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:quoted
Hi Peter, On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 03:05:13PM +0300, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:quoted
+ if (pdata) { + info->vibldrv_res = pdata->vibldrv_res; + info->vibrdrv_res = pdata->vibrdrv_res; + info->viblmotor_res = pdata->viblmotor_res; + info->vibrmotor_res = pdata->vibrmotor_res; + vddvibl_uV = pdata->vddvibl_uV; + vddvibr_uV = pdata->vddvibr_uV; + } else { + of_property_read_u32(node, "vibldrv_res", &info->vibldrv_res); + of_property_read_u32(node, "vibrdrv_res", &info->vibrdrv_res); + of_property_read_u32(node, "viblmotor_res", + &info->viblmotor_res); + of_property_read_u32(node, "vibrmotor_res", + &info->vibrmotor_res);Since these 4 appear to be mandatory properties don't we need to validate they are actually present in DT?If the property does not exist in the DT blob the variable will not be updated - it will remain 0. I have kept the validity check for the resistance values. This will catch the case when something is missing from the DT blob. I just did not wanted to complicate the code with additional checks since the end result would be the same.
Ah, indeed, I missed that we still validate the values. Applied, thanks Peter. -- Dmitry