Hi Andy,

On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 03:53:14PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 01:10:40PM +0300, Sakari Ailus wrote:

quoted

Instead of implementing our own means of discovering parent nodes, node
names or counting how many parents a node has, use the newly added
functions in the fwnode API to obtain that information.

Some style comments below.
Nevertheless,
Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>

Thanks!

quoted

Signed-off-by: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com>
---
 lib/vsprintf.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++----------------------
 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)

diff --git a/lib/vsprintf.c b/lib/vsprintf.c
index b00b57f9f911f..a04a2167101ef 100644
--- a/lib/vsprintf.c
+++ b/lib/vsprintf.c

@@ -38,6 +38,7 @@
 #include <net/addrconf.h>
 #include <linux/siphash.h>
 #include <linux/compiler.h>
+#include <linux/property.h>
 #ifdef CONFIG_BLOCK
 #include <linux/blkdev.h>
 #endif

@@ -1863,32 +1864,24 @@ char *flags_string(char *buf, char *end, void *flags_ptr,
 	return format_flags(buf, end, flags, names);
 }
 
-static const char *device_node_name_for_depth(const struct device_node *np, int depth)
-{
-	for ( ; np && depth; depth--)
-		np = np->parent;
-
-	return kbasename(np->full_name);
-}
-
 static noinline_for_stack
-char *device_node_gen_full_name(const struct device_node *np, char *buf, char *end)

quoted

+char *fwnode_full_name_string(struct fwnode_handle *fwnode, char *buf,
+			      char *end)

I would leave it on one line.

quoted

 {
 	int depth;
-	const struct device_node *parent = np->parent;
 
-	/* special case for root node */
-	if (!parent)
-		return string_nocheck(buf, end, "/", default_str_spec);
+	for (depth = fwnode_count_parents(fwnode); depth >= 0; depth--) {
+		struct fwnode_handle *__fwnode =
+			fwnode_get_nth_parent(fwnode, depth);

Ditto if you name temporary variable like fw / fh / fn / etc.

quoted

 
-	for (depth = 0; parent->parent; depth++)
-		parent = parent->parent;
-
-	for ( ; depth >= 0; depth--) {
-		buf = string_nocheck(buf, end, "/", default_str_spec);
-		buf = string(buf, end, device_node_name_for_depth(np, depth),

quoted

+		buf = string(buf, end, fwnode_get_name_prefix(__fwnode),
+			     default_str_spec);
+		buf = string(buf, end, fwnode_get_name(__fwnode),
 			     default_str_spec);

Ditto.

quoted

+
+		fwnode_handle_put(__fwnode);
 	}
+
 	return buf;
 }
 

@@ -1933,10 +1926,11 @@ char *device_node_string(char *buf, char *end, struct device_node *dn,
 
 		switch (*fmt) {
 		case 'f':	/* full_name */
-			buf = device_node_gen_full_name(dn, buf, end);

quoted

+			buf = fwnode_full_name_string(of_fwnode_handle(dn), buf,
+						      end);

Ditto, disregard checkpatch.

Why? I see no reason to avoid wrapping here; in fact, if I'd review a patch
that contained such code, I'd ask the submitter to wrap the lines.

-- 
Sakari Ailus
sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com