Re: [PATCH v3 08/11] gpio: sim: new testing module
From: Bartosz Golaszewski <hidden>
Date: 2021-03-12 08:57:09
Also in:
linux-gpio, lkml
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 1:28 PM Andy Shevchenko [off-list ref] wrote:
[snip]
quoted
+ +static ssize_t gpio_sim_sysfs_line_show(struct device *dev, + struct device_attribute *attr, + char *buf) +{ + struct gpio_sim_attribute *line_attr = to_gpio_sim_attr(attr); + struct gpio_sim_chip *chip = dev_get_drvdata(dev); + int ret; + + mutex_lock(&chip->lock); + ret = sprintf(buf, "%u\n", !!test_bit(line_attr->offset, chip->values));Shouldn't we use sysfs_emit() in a new code?
TIL it exists. :) I'll use it. [snip]
quoted
+ +static ssize_t gpio_sim_config_dev_name_show(struct config_item *item, + char *page) +{ + struct gpio_sim_chip_config *config = to_gpio_sim_chip_config(item); + struct platform_device *pdev; + int ret; + + mutex_lock(&config->lock); + pdev = config->pdev; + if (pdev) + ret = sprintf(page, "%s\n", dev_name(&pdev->dev)); + else + ret = sprintf(page, "n/a\n");I dunno '/' (slash) is a good character to be handled in a shell. I would prefer 'none' or 'not available' (I think space is easier, because the rules to escape much simpler: need just to take it into quotes, while / needs to be escaped separately).
My test cases work fine with 'n/a' but I can change it to 'none' if it's less controversial. [snip]
Also don't know what the rules about using s*printf() in the configfs. Maybe we have sysfs_emit() analogue or it doesn't applicable here at all. Greg?
There's no configfs_emit() or anything similar. Output for simple attributes must simply not exceed 4096 bytes. It used to be PAGE_SIZE, now it's defined in fs/configfs/file.c as SIMPLE_ATTR_SIZE. There's no need to check the length of the string here though as we're only showing what we received from the user-space anyway and configfs makes sure we don't get more than SIMPLE_ATTR_SIZE in the store callback. [snip]
quoted
+ +static int gpio_sim_config_commit_item(struct config_item *item) +{ + struct gpio_sim_chip_config *config = to_gpio_sim_chip_config(item); + struct property_entry properties[GPIO_SIM_MAX_PROP]; + struct platform_device_info pdevinfo; + struct platform_device *pdev; + unsigned int prop_idx = 0; + + memset(&pdevinfo, 0, sizeof(pdevinfo)); + memset(properties, 0, sizeof(properties)); + + mutex_lock(&config->lock); + + properties[prop_idx++] = PROPERTY_ENTRY_U32("gpio-sim,nr-gpios", + config->num_lines);quoted
+ if (config->label[0] != '\0')I'm wondering if we need this check. Isn't core taking care of it?quoted
+ properties[prop_idx++] = PROPERTY_ENTRY_STRING("gpio-sim,label", + config->label);quoted
+ if (config->line_names)Ditto.quoted
+ properties[prop_idx++] = PROPERTY_ENTRY_STRING_ARRAY_LEN( + "gpio-line-names", + config->line_names, + config->num_line_names); +
But I would be creating empty properties for nothing. Better to just not have them at all. [snip] Bartosz