Hi Hans,
On 2021-11-16 11:58+0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Thank you for working on this!
Thanks for the review!
> On 11/13/21 11:42, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > @@ -9673,6 +9711,11 @@ static ssize_t charge_behaviour_show(struct device *dev,
> > return -ENODEV;
> > if (ret)
> > active = POWER_SUPPLY_CHARGE_BEHAVIOUR_FORCE_DISCHARGE;
> > + } else if (available & BIT(POWER_SUPPLY_CHARGE_BEHAVIOUR_INHIBIT_CHARGE)) {
>
> The use of else-if here seems wrong, this suggests that batterys can never
> support both force-discharge and inhibit-charge behavior, which they can, so this
> means that active can now never get set to BEHAVIOUR_INHIBIT_CHARGE on
> batteries which support both.
>
> So AFAICT the else part of the else if should be dropped here, making this
> a new stand alone if block.
Indeed, I'll fix this logic for v2.
Thanks,
Thomas
