On Thu Apr 3, 2025 at 6:08 PM CEST, Rob Herring wrote: > On Thu, Apr 3, 2025 at 8:29 AM Andy Shevchenko > <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Apr 02, 2025 at 06:04:13PM +0200, Remo Senekowitsch wrote: >> > On Thu Mar 27, 2025 at 9:41 AM CET, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >> > > On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 06:13:42PM +0100, Remo Senekowitsch wrote: >> > >> The rust bindings for reading device properties has a single >> > >> implementation supporting differing sizes of integers. The fwnode C API >> > >> already has a similar interface, but it is not exposed with the >> > >> fwnode_property_ API. Add the fwnode_property_read_int_array() wrapper. >> >> ... >> >> > >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(fwnode_property_read_int_array); >> > > >> > > I'm not sure about this. We have a lot of assumptions in the code that the >> > > arrays beneath are only represented by the selected number of integer types. >> > > This opens a Pandora's box, e.g., reading in u24, which is not supported by >> > > the upper layers.. >> > > >> > >> +int fwnode_property_read_int_array(const struct fwnode_handle *fwnode, const char *propname, >> > >> + unsigned int elem_size, void *val, size_t nval); >> > >> > Here's an alternative approach using a macro to map each integer type explicitly >> > to its corresponding read function. There are some additional changes that will >> > be necessary to make the rest work, but this is the gist of it. >> >> I don;'t know Rust to tell anything about this, but at least it feels much >> better approach. > > I know a little Rust and it is much worse. It is implementing the same > code 8 times instead of 1 time just to work-around the C API. You mean it's worse because it will generate too much code during compile time? Remo
