linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 01/11] power: supplies: bq275xx: rename BQ27500 allow for deprecation in future.

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: <45a0f589-6a11-dcee-8a12-ec89763de501@lapa.com.au>
Date:   Fri, 6 Jan 2017 11:29:19 +1100
From:   Chris Lapa <chris@...a.com.au>
To:     Sebastian Reichel <sre@...nel.org>
Cc:     pali.rohar@...il.com, afd@...com, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/11] power: supplies: bq275xx: rename BQ27500 allow
 for deprecation in future.

On 6/1/17 10:59 am, Sebastian Reichel wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 11:04:57AM +1100, Chris Lapa wrote:
>> From: Chris Lapa <chris@...a.com.au>
>>
>> The BQ275XX definition exists only to satisfy backwards compatibility.
>>
>> tested: yes
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Chris Lapa <chris@...a.com.au>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>  static bool bq27xxx_battery_overtemp(struct bq27xxx_device_info *di, u16 flags)
>>  {
>> -	if (di->chip == BQ27500 || di->chip == BQ27541 || di->chip == BQ27545)
>> +	if (di->chip == BQ275XX || di->chip == BQ27541 || di->chip == BQ27545)
>>  		return flags & (BQ27XXX_FLAG_OTC | BQ27XXX_FLAG_OTD);
>>  	if (di->chip == BQ27530 || di->chip == BQ27421)
>>  		return flags & BQ27XXX_FLAG_OT;
>
> This is really getting out of hands in this patchset. Please
> add a patch at the beginning of the patchset, which converts
> this construct into the following:
>
> switch (di->chip) {
> case A:
> case B:
> case C:
> case D:
>     return flags & (BQ27XXX_FLAG_OTC | BQ27XXX_FLAG_OTD);
> case E:
> case F:
>     return flags & BQ27XXX_FLAG_OT;
> default:
>     return false;
> }
>
> -- Sebastian
>

I was advised to move these tests into a function which I've done in the 
10th patch. I have no issue with changing it to a switch statement, but 
should I drop the bq27xxx_has_multiple_overtemp_flags() function I added?