linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] power: supply: sbs-battery: simplify DT parsing

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4977026.Nm6AJ7K8UK@wuerfel>
Date:   Wed, 07 Sep 2016 09:58:10 +0200
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Sebastian Reichel <sre@...nel.org>
Cc:     Phil Reid <preid@...ctromag.com.au>,
        YH Huang <yh.huang@...iatek.com>,
        Joshua Clayton <stillcompiling@...il.com>,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] power: supply: sbs-battery: simplify DT parsing

On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 1:55:23 AM CEST Sebastian Reichel wrote:
> 
> Patch looks fine to me. Actually I already asked Phil to
> implement your change [0]. I just queued it to power-supply's
> for-next branch.
> 
> [0] https://marc.info/?l=linux-pm&m=147273382018953&w=2

Glad to see we had the same thought. ;-)

I see that we went for different defaults for chip->poll_retry_count:
I concluded that '0' would be the correct default, while you suggested '1'
in your reply.

Can you double-check the code and see which one is right?

	Arnd