On 3/27/2013 12:30 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 03/25/2013 08:24 PM, Rhyland Klein wrote:
>> This patch adds support for supplies to register a list of char *'s
>> which represent the list of supplies which supply them. This is the
>> opposite as the supplied_to list.
>>
>> This change maintains support for supplied_to until all drivers which
>> make use of it already are converted.
>
>> diff --git a/drivers/power/power_supply_core.c b/drivers/power/power_supply_core.c
>
>> +static int __power_supply_is_supplied_by(struct power_supply *supplier,
>> + struct power_supply *supply)
>
> Shouldn't this function return a Boolean since it's "is" something? At
> least, 1 for yes 0 for no would be more comprehensible than 0 for yes
> and error for no?
Yes, 1 or 0 or a boolean makes much more sense. I think this is carry
over from a previous iteration.
>
>> +{
>> + int i;
>> +
>> + if (!supply->supplied_from && !supplier->supplied_to)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> + /* Support both supplied_to and supplied_from modes */
>> + if (supply->supplied_from) {
>> + for (i = 0; i < supply->num_supplies; i++) {
>> + if (!supplier->name)
>> + continue;
>
> That test is loop invariant. Why put it inside the loop?
Will move before the loop.
>
> Why wouldn't a supply have a name? The loop in
> __power_supply_changed_work() that this function replaces doesn't test
> for NULL names.
Looking at the registration path for a power_supply, the only check that
might catch a power_supply with no name being registered is the call to
kobject_set_name. From looking into it I am not sure if would explicitly
fail if there was no name set, meaning that it would be possible for
power_supplies to not have a name. Therefore, I figured it would be
harmless to add a check here just to be sure before I accessed a
possibly NULL value.
>
>> + if (!strcmp(supplier->name, supply->supplied_from[i]))
>> + return 0;
>
> Don't you want to return something true here, so that the if block
> inside __power_supply_changed_work() is executed in this case?
>
> Similar comment for the else block.
Yes I think switching to boolean will cleanup the return codes and make
them make more sense.
>
>> static int __power_supply_changed_work(struct device *dev, void *data)
>
>> - for (i = 0; i < psy->num_supplicants; i++)
>> - if (!strcmp(psy->supplied_to[i], pst->name)) {
>> - if (pst->external_power_changed)
>> - pst->external_power_changed(pst);
>> - }
>> + if (__power_supply_is_supplied_by(psy, pst)) {
>> + if (pst->external_power_changed)
>> + pst->external_power_changed(pst);
>> + }
>> +
>> return 0;
>> }
>
Thanks.
-rhyland
--
nvpublic
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
