[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1903230020270.2157@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2019 00:25:58 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak@...sk>
cc: Sebastian Reichel <sre@...nel.org>,
Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/10] x86, olpc: Use a correct version when making up
a battery node
On Sun, 10 Mar 2019, Lubomir Rintel wrote:
Subject prefix ...
> The XO-1 and XO-1.5 batteries apparently differ in an ability to report
> ambient temperature. We need to use a different compatible string for the
> XO-1.5 battery.
>
> Previously olpc_dt_fixup() used the presence od the battery node's
s/od/of/
>
> +int olpc_dt_compatible_match(phandle node, const char *compat)
> +{
> + char buf[64];
> + int plen;
> + char *p;
> + int len;
Please coalesce variables of the same type. No point in wasting space.
char buf[64], *p;
int plen, len;
Hmm?
> +
> + if (olpc_dt_compatible_match(node, "olpc,xo1-battery")) {
> + /* If we have a olpc,xo1-battery compatible, then we're
> + * running a new enough firmware that already has
> + * the dcon node.
> + */
Comment style:
/*
* This is a proper multi line comment even
* if networking people use that horrible style
* above.
*/
With those nitpicks fixed:
Acked-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists