Hi!
> > > +#define PSY_MAX_CV(psy) \
> > > + psy_get_ps_int_property(psy,\
> > > + POWER_SUPPLY_PROP_CONSTANT_CHARGE_VOLTAGE_MAX)
> > > +#define PSY_VOLTAGE_NOW(psy) \
> > > + psy_get_ps_int_property(psy, POWER_SUPPLY_PROP_VOLTAGE_NOW)
> > > +#define PSY_VOLTAGE_OCV(psy) \
> > > + psy_get_ps_int_property(psy, POWER_SUPPLY_PROP_VOLTAGE_OCV)
> > > +#define PSY_CURRENT_NOW(psy) \
> > > + psy_get_ps_int_property(psy, POWER_SUPPLY_PROP_CURRENT_NOW)
> > > +#define PSY_STATUS(psy) \
> > > + psy_get_ps_int_property(psy, POWER_SUPPLY_PROP_STATUS)
> > > +#define PSY_TEMPERATURE(psy) \
> > > + psy_get_ps_int_property(psy, POWER_SUPPLY_PROP_TEMP)
> > > +#define PSY_BATTERY_TYPE(psy) \
> > > + psy_get_ps_int_property(psy, POWER_SUPPLY_PROP_TECHNOLOGY)
> > > +#define PSY_ONLINE(psy) \
> > > + psy_get_ps_int_property(psy, POWER_SUPPLY_PROP_ONLINE)
> >
> > This looks like bad idea. Just opencode it.
>
> This was to make it more readable, and avoids open codes in multiple places.
> Initially Anton had positive thoughts about this. Isn't it more readable with
> the macros?
Well... I'd expect PSY_ONLINE() macro to do something like (psy &
0x01), not call function. Yes, it is shorter, but IMO it is not
clearer.
But if Anton likes it...
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures)
http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
