Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 5 Apr 2019 15:59:48 +0200 | From | Sebastian Reichel <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 04/10] x86, olpc: Use a correct version when making up a battery node |
| |
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@linutronix.de>
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 [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |