On 2012-01-27 13:17, Juan Quintela wrote:
>> +{
>> + bool *ptr = qdev_get_prop_ptr(dev, prop);
>> + if (strcmp(str, "true") == 0 || strcmp(str, "yes") == 0) {
>> + *ptr = true;
>> + } else if (strcmp(str, "false") == 0 || strcmp(str, "no") == 0) {
>> + *ptr = false;
>> + } else {
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + }
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int parse_bool_switch(DeviceState *dev, Property *prop,
>> + const char *str)
>> +{
>> + bool *ptr = qdev_get_prop_ptr(dev, prop);
>> + if (strcmp(str, "on") == 0) {
>> + *ptr = true;
>> + } else if (strcmp(str, "off") == 0) {
>> + *ptr = false;
>> + } else {
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + }
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>
> As I am joining late to this discussion, I am not going to point it very
> strong. But I think that it is an easy to have a single bool type that
> accept yes/on/true and no/off/false. Didn't really see a strong
> advantage with the split.
Accepting all this on input is a non-issue, but true/false as output is
suboptimal for quite a few existing and future switches.
Jan
--
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
