Re: [PATCH v3 07/14] software_node: Add support for fwnode_graph*() family of functions

[Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com>]

Hi Daniel,

On Thu, Dec 24, 2020 at 02:21:15PM +0000, Daniel Scally wrote:
> Hi Andy, Laurent
> 
> > On Thu, Dec 24, 2020 at 2:55 PM Laurent Pinchart
> > <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, Dec 24, 2020 at 02:24:12PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Dec 24, 2020 at 3:14 AM Daniel Scally wrote:
> > 
> > ...
> > 
> >>>> +               if (!strncmp(to_swnode(port)->node->name, "port@",
> >>>
> >>> You may use here corresponding _FMT macro.
> >>>
> >>>> +                            FWNODE_GRAPH_PORT_NAME_PREFIX_LEN))
> >>>> +                       return port;
> > 
> > ...
> > 
> >>>> +       /* Ports have naming style "port@n", we need to select the n */
> >>>
> >>>> +       ret = kstrtou32(swnode->parent->node->name + FWNODE_GRAPH_PORT_NAME_PREFIX_LEN,
> >>>
> >>> Maybe a temporary variable?
> >>>
> >>>   unsigned int prefix_len = FWNODE_GRAPH_PORT_NAME_PREFIX_LEN;
> >>>   ...
> >>>   ret = kstrtou32(swnode->parent->node->name + prefix_len,
> >>
> >> Honestly I'm wondering if those macros don't hinder readability. I'd
> >> rather write
> >>
> >>         + strlen("port@")
> > 
> > Works for me, since the compiler optimizes this away to be a plain constant.
> 
> Well, how about instead of the LEN macro, we have:
> 
> #define FWNODE_GRAPH_PORT_NAME_PREFIX	"port@"
> #define FWNODE_GRAPH_PORT_NAME_FMT FWNODE_GRAPH_PORT_NAME_PREFIX "%u"
> 
> And then it's still maintainable in one place but (I think) slightly
> less clunky, since we can do strlen(FWNODE_GRAPH_PORT_NAME_PREFIX)
> 
> Or we can do strlen("port@"), I'm good either way :)

I'd be in favour of using strlen("port@") here.

At least for now. I think refactoring the use of such strings could be a
separate set at another time, if that's seen as the way to go.

-- 
Kind regards,

Sakari Ailus