linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] power: supply: rt9471: Add Richtek RT9471 charger driver

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]

Date:   Mon, 15 Aug 2022 10:24:32 +0300
From:   Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>
To:     ChiYuan Huang <u0084500@...il.com>
Cc:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Sebastian Reichel <sre@...nel.org>,
        游子馨 <alina_yu@...htek.com>,
        ChiYuan Huang <cy_huang@...htek.com>, alinayu829@...il.com,
        Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] power: supply: rt9471: Add Richtek RT9471 charger driver

ma 15. elok. 2022 klo 9.11 ChiYuan Huang (u0084500@...il.com) kirjoitti:
>
> Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com> 於 2022年8月15日 週一 下午1:53寫道：
> >
> > Hi ChiYuan,
> >
> > Thanks for the patch :)
> >
> > to 11. elok. 2022 klo 16.43 cy_huang (u0084500@...il.com) kirjoitti:
> > >
> > > From: ChiYuan Huang <cy_huang@...htek.com>
> > >
> > > Add support for the RT9471 3A 1-Cell Li+ battery charger.
> > >
> > > The RT9471 is a highly-integrated 3A switch mode battery charger with
> > > low impedance power path to better optimize the charging efficiency.
> > >
> > > Co-developed-by: Alina Yu <alina_yu@...htek.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Alina Yu <alina_yu@...htek.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: ChiYuan Huang <cy_huang@...htek.com>
> > > ---
> >

> > While skimming through the rest of the patch... This may just be my
> > personal preference but wrapper functions with just one line are
> > rarely beneficial. In the worst case they just add more lines AND hide
> > the details of what actually is done without any clear benefits. Well,
> > this is just my view so please ignore this comment if wrappers like
> > this are a "subsystem standard"
> >
> I'm not sure what the 'subsystem standard' is.
> I declare it as 'inline' function and the  function name to tell the
> user what I'm doing.
> This may be silly. But from my aspect, it makes each property set/get
> more clear.

I guess this is Ok if the maintainer does not complain. And if he does
- then we at least know the "subsystem standard" ;)

Yours
  -- Matti
-- 

Matti Vaittinen
Linux kernel developer at ROHM Semiconductors
Oulu Finland

~~ When things go utterly wrong vim users can always type :help! ~~