Hi! > > > +#define PSY_MAX_CV(psy) \ > > > + psy_get_ps_int_property(psy,\ > > > + POWER_SUPPLY_PROP_CONSTANT_CHARGE_VOLTAGE_MAX) > > > +#define PSY_VOLTAGE_NOW(psy) \ > > > + psy_get_ps_int_property(psy, POWER_SUPPLY_PROP_VOLTAGE_NOW) > > > +#define PSY_VOLTAGE_OCV(psy) \ > > > + psy_get_ps_int_property(psy, POWER_SUPPLY_PROP_VOLTAGE_OCV) > > > +#define PSY_CURRENT_NOW(psy) \ > > > + psy_get_ps_int_property(psy, POWER_SUPPLY_PROP_CURRENT_NOW) > > > +#define PSY_STATUS(psy) \ > > > + psy_get_ps_int_property(psy, POWER_SUPPLY_PROP_STATUS) > > > +#define PSY_TEMPERATURE(psy) \ > > > + psy_get_ps_int_property(psy, POWER_SUPPLY_PROP_TEMP) > > > +#define PSY_BATTERY_TYPE(psy) \ > > > + psy_get_ps_int_property(psy, POWER_SUPPLY_PROP_TECHNOLOGY) > > > +#define PSY_ONLINE(psy) \ > > > + psy_get_ps_int_property(psy, POWER_SUPPLY_PROP_ONLINE) > > > > This looks like bad idea. Just opencode it. > > This was to make it more readable, and avoids open codes in multiple places. > Initially Anton had positive thoughts about this. Isn't it more readable with > the macros? Well... I'd expect PSY_ONLINE() macro to do something like (psy & 0x01), not call function. Yes, it is shorter, but IMO it is not clearer. But if Anton likes it... Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
