On 18/09/2024 14:43, Andreas Kemnade wrote:
> Am Wed, 18 Sep 2024 12:43:01 +0200
> schrieb Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> [...]
>> Drop {}, see checkpatch.
>>
>>> + return dev_err_probe(&pdev->dev, ret,
>>> + "could not request irq %d\n",
>>> + charger->irq_chg);
>>> + }
>>> +
>
> Apparently checkpatch only moans about {} around single *lines*
> not single *statements*, even with --strict.
>
> Coding-style says single statements, so maybe checkpatch should be
> fixed?
>
> Same for other appearance of this pattern.
Hm, could be. I think this still should be without {}, regardless of
checkpatch.
>
>>> + /* turing to charging to configure things */
>>> + twl6030_charger_write(CONTROLLER_CTRL1, 0);
>>> + twl6030_charger_interrupt(0, charger);
>>> +
>>> + return 0;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static const struct of_device_id twl_charger_of_match[]
>>> __maybe_unused = {
>>> + {.compatible = "ti,twl6030-charger", },
>>> + {.compatible = "ti,twl6032-charger", },
>>
>> So they are compatible? Why two entries in such case?
>>
> There is one device_is_compatible() in the file.
Ah, you should rather use match data. Compatibles inside the code do not
scale.
>
> Regrads,
> Andreas
Best regards,
Krzysztof
