On 03/22/2018 03:40 AM, Adam Thomson wrote:
On 22 March 2018 04:09, Guenter Roeck wrote:
+static int tcpm_psy_set_prop(struct power_supply *psy,
+ enum power_supply_property psp,
+ const union power_supply_propval *val)
+{
+ struct tcpm_port *port = power_supply_get_drvdata(psy);
+ int ret = 0;
+
+ switch (psp) {
+ case POWER_SUPPLY_PROP_ONLINE:
+ ret = tcpm_psy_set_online(port, val);
+ break;
+ case POWER_SUPPLY_PROP_VOLTAGE_NOW:
+ if ((val->intval < (port->pps_data.min_volt * 1000)) ||
+ (val->intval > (port->pps_data.max_volt * 1000)))
+ ret = -EINVAL;
+ else
+ ret = tcpm_pps_set_out_volt(port, (val->intval / 1000));
+ break;
+ case POWER_SUPPLY_PROP_CURRENT_NOW:
+ if (val->intval > (port->pps_data.max_curr * 1000))
+ ret = -EINVAL;
+ else
+ ret = tcpm_pps_set_op_curr(port, (val->intval / 1000));
I am really not a friend of excessive ( ).
Yes, I got that. :) I am of the opinion that they should be used to enforce
precedence. This to me is good coding practice and makes it unambiguous for the
reader. That's why I use them as above. Do you think the above uses make it
harder to understand or more difficult to maintain?
It confuses me and makes me think I am missing something, and causes me to miss
the _real_ problems. If the compiler is not able to enforce precedence, even
more so
in situations like the above, I think it is about time to dump it.
Either case, your call to make. I wont give patches with excessive ( ) a
Reviewed-by:,
but then others can review the code.
Thanks,
Guenter
