On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 05:24:03PM +0100, Lubomir Rintel wrote:
> The battery and the protocol are essentially the same as OLPC XO 1.5,
> but the responses from the EC are LSB first.
>
> Signed-off-by: Lubomir Rintel <lkund...@v3.sk>
> Acked-by: Pavel Machek <pa...@ucw.cz>
>
> ---
> Changes since v1:
> - s/s16 ecword_to_cpu/u16 ecword_to_cpu/
> - s/u16 ec_byte/u16 ec_word/
>
> drivers/power/supply/olpc_battery.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/power/supply/olpc_battery.c
> b/drivers/power/supply/olpc_battery.c
...
> @@ -626,6 +635,10 @@ static int olpc_battery_probe(struct platform_device
> *pdev)
> if (ecver > 0x44) {
> /* XO 1 or 1.5 with a new EC firmware. */
> data->new_proto = 1;
> + } else if (of_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL, "olpc,xo1.75-ec")) {
This if/else blocks concerns me a bit, but I might just be missing some
context.
This tests both ecver as well as the OF compatible string, is this reliable? Do
we know that for all xo1.75-ec compatible nodes the ecver will be <= 0x44? Or,
is ecver undefined? If the latter, then perhaps this test should be performed
first?
if (of_find_compatible_node....x01.75-ec...)
...
else if (ecver > 0x44)
...
else
...
And what happens when ecver == 0x44? We test for > and < but not ==, <=,
or >= in this block
> + /* XO 1.75 */
> + data->new_proto = 1;
> + data->little_endian = 1;
> } else if (ecver < 0x44) {
> /*
> * We've seen a number of EC protocol changes; this driver
> --
> 2.19.1
>
>
--
Darren Hart
VMware Open Source Technology Center
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
