linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 01/11] power: supplies: bq275xx: move overtemp tests to a switch statement.

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: <68f9bea1-9910-5542-92d9-058b3ae35eea@ti.com>
Date:   Mon, 9 Jan 2017 09:35:07 -0600
From:   "Andrew F. Davis" <afd@...com>
To:     Chris Lapa <chris@...a.com.au>, <pali.rohar@...il.com>,
        <sre@...nel.org>, <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 01/11] power: supplies: bq275xx: move overtemp tests to
 a switch statement.

On 01/08/2017 06:47 PM, Chris Lapa wrote:
> From: Chris Lapa <chris@...a.com.au>
> 
> This is done for readability as the upcoming commits will add a lot of
> cases.
> 
> tested: no
> 
> Signed-off-by: Chris Lapa <chris@...a.com.au>
> ---
>  drivers/power/supply/bq27xxx_battery.c | 13 +++++++++----
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/power/supply/bq27xxx_battery.c b/drivers/power/supply/bq27xxx_battery.c
> index 3b0dbc6..fd4cc4e 100644
> --- a/drivers/power/supply/bq27xxx_battery.c
> +++ b/drivers/power/supply/bq27xxx_battery.c
> @@ -635,12 +635,17 @@ static int bq27xxx_battery_read_pwr_avg(struct bq27xxx_device_info *di)
>   */
>  static bool bq27xxx_battery_overtemp(struct bq27xxx_device_info *di, u16 flags)
>  {
> -	if (di->chip == BQ27500 || di->chip == BQ27541 || di->chip == BQ27545)
> +	switch (di->chip) {
> +	case BQ27500:
> +	case BQ27541:
> +	case BQ27545:

As some functions are not long enough to need this refactoring, I feel
we still have some code consistency issues in this driver. At some point
it may be better to add some additional fields to the device definition
structure, then we reference that and not use coded cases for selection.

For now, this and the rest of the series look correct to me:

Reviewed-by: Andrew F. Davis <afd@...com>

>  		return flags & (BQ27XXX_FLAG_OTC | BQ27XXX_FLAG_OTD);
> -	if (di->chip == BQ27530 || di->chip == BQ27421)
> +	case BQ27530:
> +	case BQ27421:
>  		return flags & BQ27XXX_FLAG_OT;
> -
> -	return false;
> +	default:
> +		return false;
> +	}
>  }
>  
>  /*
>