From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dmitry Torokhov Subject: Re: [PATCH] Input: tl6040-vibra: Device Tree support Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 08:48:26 -0700 Message-ID: <20120507154826.GB10222@core.coreip.homeip.net> References: <1336133113-12224-1-git-send-email-peter.ujfalusi@ti.com> <20120507070233.GB22074@core.coreip.homeip.net> <4FA7A8B9.4040208@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-pz0-f46.google.com ([209.85.210.46]:35530 "EHLO mail-pz0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754541Ab2EGPsc (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 May 2012 11:48:32 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4FA7A8B9.4040208@ti.com> Sender: linux-input-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-input@vger.kernel.org To: Peter Ujfalusi Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-input@vger.kernel.org, Misael Lopez Cruz , Benoit Cousson , devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, Liam Girdwood 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: > > Hi Peter, > > > > On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 03:05:13PM +0300, Peter Ujfalusi wrote: > >> + 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