From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 02/12] drivers: base: cacheinfo: setup DT cache
 properties early
Date: Thu, 17 May 2018 16:47:01 +0100
Message-ID: <20180517154701.GA20281@e107155-lin>
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>
 <a64ed431-0f60-2711-4138-eeefc7ba2d8b@arm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <a64ed431-0f60-2711-4138-eeefc7ba2d8b@arm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>, Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com>
Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>, ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>, linux-arm Mailing List <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>, Lorenzo Pieralisi <Lorenzo.Pieralisi@arm.com>, Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>, Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@arm.com>, Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@arm.com>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, Mark Rutland <Mark.Rutland@arm.com>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, Xiongfeng Wang <wangxiongfeng2@huawei.com>, vkilari@codeaurora.org, Al Stone <ahs3@redhat.com>, Dietmar.Eggemann@arm.com, Morten.Rasmussen@arm.com, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com>, Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>, John Garry <joh>
List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org

On 16/05/18 11:56, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> 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.
> 

Is below patch does what you were looking for ?

Regards,
Sudeep

--
>>From 71f1c10ddb5915a92fa74d38a4e2406d0ab27845 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 13:45:53 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] drivers: base: cacheinfo: use OF property_read_u64 instead of
 get_property,read_number

of_property_read_u64 searches for a property in a device node and read
a 64-bit value from it. Instead of using of_get_property to get the
property and then read 64-bit value using of_read_number, we can make
use of of_property_read_u64.

Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
---
 drivers/base/cacheinfo.c | 24 +++++++++++-------------
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/base/cacheinfo.c b/drivers/base/cacheinfo.c
index 2880e2ab01f5..56715014f07b 100644
--- a/drivers/base/cacheinfo.c
+++ b/drivers/base/cacheinfo.c
@@ -74,22 +74,21 @@ static inline int get_cacheinfo_idx(enum cache_type type)
 static void cache_size(struct cacheinfo *this_leaf, struct device_node *np)
 {
 	const char *propname;
-	const __be32 *cache_size;
+	u64 cache_size;
 	int ct_idx;
 
 	ct_idx = get_cacheinfo_idx(this_leaf->type);
 	propname = cache_type_info[ct_idx].size_prop;
 
-	cache_size = of_get_property(np, propname, NULL);
-	if (cache_size)
-		this_leaf->size = of_read_number(cache_size, 1);
+	if (!of_property_read_u64(np, propname, &cache_size))
+		this_leaf->size = cache_size;
 }
 
 /* not cache_line_size() because that's a macro in include/linux/cache.h */
 static void cache_get_line_size(struct cacheinfo *this_leaf,
 				struct device_node *np)
 {
-	const __be32 *line_size;
+	u64 line_size;
 	int i, lim, ct_idx;
 
 	ct_idx = get_cacheinfo_idx(this_leaf->type);
@@ -99,27 +98,26 @@ static void cache_get_line_size(struct cacheinfo *this_leaf,
 		const char *propname;
 
 		propname = cache_type_info[ct_idx].line_size_props[i];
-		line_size = of_get_property(np, propname, NULL);
-		if (line_size)
+		line_size = of_property_read_u64(np, propname, &line_size);
+		if (line_size) {
+			this_leaf->coherency_line_size = line_size;
 			break;
+		}
 	}
 
-	if (line_size)
-		this_leaf->coherency_line_size = of_read_number(line_size, 1);
 }
 
 static void cache_nr_sets(struct cacheinfo *this_leaf, struct device_node *np)
 {
 	const char *propname;
-	const __be32 *nr_sets;
+	u64 nr_sets;
 	int ct_idx;
 
 	ct_idx = get_cacheinfo_idx(this_leaf->type);
 	propname = cache_type_info[ct_idx].nr_sets_prop;
 
-	nr_sets = of_get_property(np, propname, NULL);
-	if (nr_sets)
-		this_leaf->number_of_sets = of_read_number(nr_sets, 1);
+	if (!of_property_read_u64(np, propname, &nr_sets))
+		this_leaf->number_of_sets = nr_sets;
 }
 
 static void cache_associativity(struct cacheinfo *this_leaf)
-- 
2.7.4

From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZpMvKGzA43bprdUBjNPo8wQ4q+QDL5NgDgrNpQcL2JSwewAKhyTPUjFRlOMUGVrukx+O2kQ
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1526572037; cv=none;
        d=google.com; s=arc-20160816;
        b=fS6eCCNb8nTYeNUMseCGZBtPhYXOJBNmWYzLcqnzx18JVoQI2W/QGnqCmGnSpvb/hf
         0lL4ftEBiPt91Zes6mxWtcdBOg4H7sPmHk2LRPzQKoScflJ3KFjwflaY3DpjRKfvJ1Lo
         JuvI1QNtx2y5nvX/jfvmGbW0y/a7g7ibrUL4JQSI899ySjBjEYQlzL2wNE26CMUtT9Yq
         czzDYKHgZl5Py8I0vR3H2VCHZsoGFQrD5KrrcnpcQ7DSni3YvyxkgEJtC+UWN2xTUxfw
         ssUQsxBReXfMrcUTiev2u5UW8lnIGO3vH/rQshe/xi2LNe/icAMSvY0c5R6atmWebobf
         AE2A==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816;
        h=user-agent:in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references
         :message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:arc-authentication-results;
        bh=VrVRjV41gEeeTOiFOQoD2VVGiDZsNCosDsqX9KfZVA4=;
        b=GYkw6ODQgwCxLS/xqw1n4OCH9jMrmupNA6Ae24v/LDsziueI9AGVvf3SHfqm66BQLo
         bp83+81Nlicay/GSvsV5NMK9XpU/Od4SGt+9uoQf3GNaNerqprM5eEEFukZ12I/CrcuJ
         r6nNfO3q7OlOYL7k/Kcpr0gEGUP8wKXlYVLvDx8s8BKm+YADbyYTo1JdV9zvtFAe72pi
         lhggDG3AKLGIEOmxMrgBgprTCM7lWGvKDNzyqWT74mV0Q7Bv3hhxxnojzHhvh9o1bO/W
         6/MajyGUAKBhW+Fa3CNvRP3lZZi/MIouFghlOyeOqKp56pSdKAb9H8WJKq+rhiuvQo2U
         0H4g==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com;
       spf=pass (google.com: domain of sudeep.holla@arm.com designates 217.140.101.70 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=sudeep.holla@arm.com
Authentication-Results: mx.google.com;
       spf=pass (google.com: domain of sudeep.holla@arm.com designates 217.140.101.70 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=sudeep.holla@arm.com
Date: Thu, 17 May 2018 16:47:01 +0100
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>,
	Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com>
Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-arm Mailing List <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <Lorenzo.Pieralisi@arm.com>,
	Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@arm.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@arm.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Mark Rutland <Mark.Rutland@arm.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
	Xiongfeng Wang <wangxiongfeng2@huawei.com>, vkilari@codeaurora.org,
	Al Stone <ahs3@redhat.com>, Dietmar.Eggemann@arm.com,
	Morten.Rasmussen@arm.com, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com>,
	Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>, John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>,
	austinwc@codeaurora.org, tnowicki@caviumnetworks.com,
	jhugo@codeaurora.org, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 02/12] drivers: base: cacheinfo: setup DT cache
 properties early
Message-ID: <20180517154701.GA20281@e107155-lin>
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>
 <a64ed431-0f60-2711-4138-eeefc7ba2d8b@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <a64ed431-0f60-2711-4138-eeefc7ba2d8b@arm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
X-getmail-retrieved-from-mailbox: INBOX
X-GMAIL-THRID: =?utf-8?q?1600214158032002659?=
X-GMAIL-MSGID: =?utf-8?q?1600726800525558284?=
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>

On 16/05/18 11:56, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> 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.
> 

Is below patch does what you were looking for ?

Regards,
Sudeep

--
>>From 71f1c10ddb5915a92fa74d38a4e2406d0ab27845 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 13:45:53 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] drivers: base: cacheinfo: use OF property_read_u64 instead of
 get_property,read_number

of_property_read_u64 searches for a property in a device node and read
a 64-bit value from it. Instead of using of_get_property to get the
property and then read 64-bit value using of_read_number, we can make
use of of_property_read_u64.

Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
---
 drivers/base/cacheinfo.c | 24 +++++++++++-------------
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/base/cacheinfo.c b/drivers/base/cacheinfo.c
index 2880e2ab01f5..56715014f07b 100644
--- a/drivers/base/cacheinfo.c
+++ b/drivers/base/cacheinfo.c
@@ -74,22 +74,21 @@ static inline int get_cacheinfo_idx(enum cache_type type)
 static void cache_size(struct cacheinfo *this_leaf, struct device_node *np)
 {
 	const char *propname;
-	const __be32 *cache_size;
+	u64 cache_size;
 	int ct_idx;
 
 	ct_idx = get_cacheinfo_idx(this_leaf->type);
 	propname = cache_type_info[ct_idx].size_prop;
 
-	cache_size = of_get_property(np, propname, NULL);
-	if (cache_size)
-		this_leaf->size = of_read_number(cache_size, 1);
+	if (!of_property_read_u64(np, propname, &cache_size))
+		this_leaf->size = cache_size;
 }
 
 /* not cache_line_size() because that's a macro in include/linux/cache.h */
 static void cache_get_line_size(struct cacheinfo *this_leaf,
 				struct device_node *np)
 {
-	const __be32 *line_size;
+	u64 line_size;
 	int i, lim, ct_idx;
 
 	ct_idx = get_cacheinfo_idx(this_leaf->type);
@@ -99,27 +98,26 @@ static void cache_get_line_size(struct cacheinfo *this_leaf,
 		const char *propname;
 
 		propname = cache_type_info[ct_idx].line_size_props[i];
-		line_size = of_get_property(np, propname, NULL);
-		if (line_size)
+		line_size = of_property_read_u64(np, propname, &line_size);
+		if (line_size) {
+			this_leaf->coherency_line_size = line_size;
 			break;
+		}
 	}
 
-	if (line_size)
-		this_leaf->coherency_line_size = of_read_number(line_size, 1);
 }
 
 static void cache_nr_sets(struct cacheinfo *this_leaf, struct device_node *np)
 {
 	const char *propname;
-	const __be32 *nr_sets;
+	u64 nr_sets;
 	int ct_idx;
 
 	ct_idx = get_cacheinfo_idx(this_leaf->type);
 	propname = cache_type_info[ct_idx].nr_sets_prop;
 
-	nr_sets = of_get_property(np, propname, NULL);
-	if (nr_sets)
-		this_leaf->number_of_sets = of_read_number(nr_sets, 1);
+	if (!of_property_read_u64(np, propname, &nr_sets))
+		this_leaf->number_of_sets = nr_sets;
 }
 
 static void cache_associativity(struct cacheinfo *this_leaf)
-- 
2.7.4

From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: sudeep.holla@arm.com (Sudeep Holla)
Date: Thu, 17 May 2018 16:47:01 +0100
Subject: [PATCH v9 02/12] drivers: base: cacheinfo: setup DT cache
 properties early
In-Reply-To: <a64ed431-0f60-2711-4138-eeefc7ba2d8b@arm.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>
 <a64ed431-0f60-2711-4138-eeefc7ba2d8b@arm.com>
Message-ID: <20180517154701.GA20281@e107155-lin>
To: linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-riscv.lists.infradead.org

On 16/05/18 11:56, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> 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.
> 

Is below patch does what you were looking for ?

Regards,
Sudeep

--
>>From 71f1c10ddb5915a92fa74d38a4e2406d0ab27845 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 13:45:53 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] drivers: base: cacheinfo: use OF property_read_u64 instead of
 get_property,read_number

of_property_read_u64 searches for a property in a device node and read
a 64-bit value from it. Instead of using of_get_property to get the
property and then read 64-bit value using of_read_number, we can make
use of of_property_read_u64.

Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
---
 drivers/base/cacheinfo.c | 24 +++++++++++-------------
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/base/cacheinfo.c b/drivers/base/cacheinfo.c
index 2880e2ab01f5..56715014f07b 100644
--- a/drivers/base/cacheinfo.c
+++ b/drivers/base/cacheinfo.c
@@ -74,22 +74,21 @@ static inline int get_cacheinfo_idx(enum cache_type type)
 static void cache_size(struct cacheinfo *this_leaf, struct device_node *np)
 {
 	const char *propname;
-	const __be32 *cache_size;
+	u64 cache_size;
 	int ct_idx;
 
 	ct_idx = get_cacheinfo_idx(this_leaf->type);
 	propname = cache_type_info[ct_idx].size_prop;
 
-	cache_size = of_get_property(np, propname, NULL);
-	if (cache_size)
-		this_leaf->size = of_read_number(cache_size, 1);
+	if (!of_property_read_u64(np, propname, &cache_size))
+		this_leaf->size = cache_size;
 }
 
 /* not cache_line_size() because that's a macro in include/linux/cache.h */
 static void cache_get_line_size(struct cacheinfo *this_leaf,
 				struct device_node *np)
 {
-	const __be32 *line_size;
+	u64 line_size;
 	int i, lim, ct_idx;
 
 	ct_idx = get_cacheinfo_idx(this_leaf->type);
@@ -99,27 +98,26 @@ static void cache_get_line_size(struct cacheinfo *this_leaf,
 		const char *propname;
 
 		propname = cache_type_info[ct_idx].line_size_props[i];
-		line_size = of_get_property(np, propname, NULL);
-		if (line_size)
+		line_size = of_property_read_u64(np, propname, &line_size);
+		if (line_size) {
+			this_leaf->coherency_line_size = line_size;
 			break;
+		}
 	}
 
-	if (line_size)
-		this_leaf->coherency_line_size = of_read_number(line_size, 1);
 }
 
 static void cache_nr_sets(struct cacheinfo *this_leaf, struct device_node *np)
 {
 	const char *propname;
-	const __be32 *nr_sets;
+	u64 nr_sets;
 	int ct_idx;
 
 	ct_idx = get_cacheinfo_idx(this_leaf->type);
 	propname = cache_type_info[ct_idx].nr_sets_prop;
 
-	nr_sets = of_get_property(np, propname, NULL);
-	if (nr_sets)
-		this_leaf->number_of_sets = of_read_number(nr_sets, 1);
+	if (!of_property_read_u64(np, propname, &nr_sets))
+		this_leaf->number_of_sets = nr_sets;
 }
 
 static void cache_associativity(struct cacheinfo *this_leaf)
-- 
2.7.4

From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: sudeep.holla@arm.com (Sudeep Holla)
Date: Thu, 17 May 2018 16:47:01 +0100
Subject: [PATCH v9 02/12] drivers: base: cacheinfo: setup DT cache
 properties early
In-Reply-To: <a64ed431-0f60-2711-4138-eeefc7ba2d8b@arm.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>
 <a64ed431-0f60-2711-4138-eeefc7ba2d8b@arm.com>
Message-ID: <20180517154701.GA20281@e107155-lin>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 16/05/18 11:56, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> 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.
> 

Is below patch does what you were looking for ?

Regards,
Sudeep

--
>>From 71f1c10ddb5915a92fa74d38a4e2406d0ab27845 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 13:45:53 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] drivers: base: cacheinfo: use OF property_read_u64 instead of
 get_property,read_number

of_property_read_u64 searches for a property in a device node and read
a 64-bit value from it. Instead of using of_get_property to get the
property and then read 64-bit value using of_read_number, we can make
use of of_property_read_u64.

Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
---
 drivers/base/cacheinfo.c | 24 +++++++++++-------------
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/base/cacheinfo.c b/drivers/base/cacheinfo.c
index 2880e2ab01f5..56715014f07b 100644
--- a/drivers/base/cacheinfo.c
+++ b/drivers/base/cacheinfo.c
@@ -74,22 +74,21 @@ static inline int get_cacheinfo_idx(enum cache_type type)
 static void cache_size(struct cacheinfo *this_leaf, struct device_node *np)
 {
 	const char *propname;
-	const __be32 *cache_size;
+	u64 cache_size;
 	int ct_idx;
 
 	ct_idx = get_cacheinfo_idx(this_leaf->type);
 	propname = cache_type_info[ct_idx].size_prop;
 
-	cache_size = of_get_property(np, propname, NULL);
-	if (cache_size)
-		this_leaf->size = of_read_number(cache_size, 1);
+	if (!of_property_read_u64(np, propname, &cache_size))
+		this_leaf->size = cache_size;
 }
 
 /* not cache_line_size() because that's a macro in include/linux/cache.h */
 static void cache_get_line_size(struct cacheinfo *this_leaf,
 				struct device_node *np)
 {
-	const __be32 *line_size;
+	u64 line_size;
 	int i, lim, ct_idx;
 
 	ct_idx = get_cacheinfo_idx(this_leaf->type);
@@ -99,27 +98,26 @@ static void cache_get_line_size(struct cacheinfo *this_leaf,
 		const char *propname;
 
 		propname = cache_type_info[ct_idx].line_size_props[i];
-		line_size = of_get_property(np, propname, NULL);
-		if (line_size)
+		line_size = of_property_read_u64(np, propname, &line_size);
+		if (line_size) {
+			this_leaf->coherency_line_size = line_size;
 			break;
+		}
 	}
 
-	if (line_size)
-		this_leaf->coherency_line_size = of_read_number(line_size, 1);
 }
 
 static void cache_nr_sets(struct cacheinfo *this_leaf, struct device_node *np)
 {
 	const char *propname;
-	const __be32 *nr_sets;
+	u64 nr_sets;
 	int ct_idx;
 
 	ct_idx = get_cacheinfo_idx(this_leaf->type);
 	propname = cache_type_info[ct_idx].nr_sets_prop;
 
-	nr_sets = of_get_property(np, propname, NULL);
-	if (nr_sets)
-		this_leaf->number_of_sets = of_read_number(nr_sets, 1);
+	if (!of_property_read_u64(np, propname, &nr_sets))
+		this_leaf->number_of_sets = nr_sets;
 }
 
 static void cache_associativity(struct cacheinfo *this_leaf)
-- 
2.7.4