On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 23:10:09 +0300
Andy Shevchenko [off-list ref] wrote:

Yes, I have no objection to put it there, just that the above
justification doesn't allow it to be in the generic code (yes, we may
still have some awkward APIs in the property.c and ideally they should
be moved to the respective subsystems).

OK

quoted

quoted

You may count the values and read them all,  

What do you mean? Count the values and read them all via one
call to fwnode_property_string_array_count() ?  

No, you obviously may not read them via string_array APIs, esp. one
that is related to counting.

Count the vals first, read them all (it seems you need it in all
branches of your flow). Then count names and compare them to the
number of values, and so on... Also try to assign "default" only once.

1. there is one branch where I don't need to read the values: when the
   "-names" property does not exist, the DT binding documentation says
   that the value property should only contain one value, the default
   one. So in that case I early return
     return fwnode_property_read_u32(fwnode, vals_prop, amplitude);

2. I thought that I shouldn't check whether the size of the
   "tx-p2p-microvolt-names" array is equal to the size of
   "tx-p2p-microvolt". Rob Herring says (if I understand correctly) that
   kernel shouldn't validate device-tree, that we have dt-schema for
   that...

Marek

-- 
linux-phy mailing list
linux-phy@lists.infradead.org
https://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-phy