Hi, On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 09:58:10AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > 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?
0 is correct. It will be incremented to 1 later. -- Sebastian
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
