Re: [PATCH 04/10] x86, olpc: Use a correct version when making up a battery node

[Sebastian Reichel]

Hi,

On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 12:25:58AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Mar 2019, Lubomir Rintel wrote:
> 
> Subject prefix ...
> 
> > The XO-1 and XO-1.5 batteries apparently differ in an ability to report
> > ambient temperature. We need to use a different compatible string for the
> > XO-1.5 battery.
> > 
> > Previously olpc_dt_fixup() used the presence od the battery node's
> 
> s/od/of/
> 
> >  
> > +int olpc_dt_compatible_match(phandle node, const char *compat)
> > +{
> > +	char buf[64];
> > +	int plen;
> > +	char *p;
> > +	int len;
> 
> Please coalesce variables of the same type. No point in wasting space.
> 
> 	char buf[64], *p;
> 	int plen, len;
> 
> Hmm?
> 
> > +
> > +		if (olpc_dt_compatible_match(node, "olpc,xo1-battery")) {
> > +			/* If we have a olpc,xo1-battery compatible, then we're
> > +			 * running a new enough firmware that already has
> > +			 * the dcon node.
> > +			 */
> 
> Comment style:
> 
>        		 	 /*
> 			  * This is a proper multi line comment even
> 			  * if networking people use that horrible style
> 			  * above.
> 			  */
> 
> With those nitpicks fixed:
> 
> Acked-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Looks like this is the last required change before this can be
merged. Assuming Lubomir sends a fixed series soon, how should
it be merged?

a) I get a pull-request with a immutable branch for patch 2-4
b) Complete patchset goes in via x86
c) Complete patchset goes in via power-supply

I'm fine with all variants.

-- Sebastian

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature