On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 1:55:23 AM CEST Sebastian Reichel wrote:
>
> Patch looks fine to me. Actually I already asked Phil to
> implement your change [0]. I just queued it to power-supply's
> for-next branch.
>
> [0] https://marc.info/?l=linux-pm&m=147273382018953&w=2
Glad to see we had the same thought. ;-)
I see that we went for different defaults for chip->poll_retry_count:
I concluded that '0' would be the correct default, while you suggested '1'
in your reply.
Can you double-check the code and see which one is right?
Arnd
