From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: sudeep.holla@arm.com (Sudeep Holla)
Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 11:56:26 +0100
Subject: [PATCH v9 02/12] drivers: base: cacheinfo: setup DT cache
 properties early
In-Reply-To: <CAHp75VciOAMX1HWifZ+K9GiVicZRFrwHaGteJFVe1uFrh+qu0w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20180511235807.30834-1-jeremy.linton@arm.com>
 <20180511235807.30834-3-jeremy.linton@arm.com>
 <78b08b68-ff57-8dd8-6eb1-00548f275eac@arm.com>
 <CAHp75VciOAMX1HWifZ+K9GiVicZRFrwHaGteJFVe1uFrh+qu0w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <a64ed431-0f60-2711-4138-eeefc7ba2d8b@arm.com>
To: linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-riscv.lists.infradead.org

Hi Andy,

On 15/05/18 20:32, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 8:15 PM, Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com> wrote:
>> On 05/11/2018 06:57 PM, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> 
>>>   -     cache_size = of_get_property(this_leaf->of_node, propname, NULL);
>>> +       cache_size = of_get_property(np, propname, NULL);
>>>         if (cache_size)
>>>                 this_leaf->size = of_read_number(cache_size, 1);
> 
> Can't you switch to of_read_property_uXX() variant here?
> 

This patch is just changing the first argument to the calls. So if we
need to change, it has to be separate patch.

Now, we can use of_property_read_u64() but is there any particular
reason you mention that ? One reason I can see is that we can avoid
making explicit of_get_property call. Just wanted to the motive before I
can write the patch.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep