Hi,
On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 12:25:58AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Looks like this is the last required change before this can be
merged. Assuming Lubomir sends a fixed series soon, how should
it be merged?
a) I get a pull-request with a immutable branch for patch 2-4
b) Complete patchset goes in via x86
c) Complete patchset goes in via power-supply
I'm fine with all variants.
-- Sebastian
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
