Re: [PATCH v3 3/7] max8903: cleans up confusing relationship between dc_valid, dok and dcm.

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 06/17/2016 08:28 AM, Chris Lapa wrote:
> On 17/06/2016 4:26 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 06/17/2016 07:00 AM, Chris Lapa wrote:
>>> From: Chris Lapa <chris@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> The max8903_charger.h file indicated that dcm and dok were not optional
>>> when dc_valid is set.
>>>
>>> It makes sense to have dok as a compulsory pin when dc_valid is given.
>>> However dcm can be optionally wired to a fixed level especially when the
>>> circuit is configured for dc power exclusively.
>>>
>>> The previous implementation already allowed for this somewhat,
>>> however no
>>> error was given if dok wasn't given whilst dc_valid was.
>>>
>>> The new implementation enforces dok presence when dc_valid is given.
>>> Whilst
>>> allowing dcm to be optional.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Chris Lapa <chris@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/power/max8903_charger.c       | 23 ++++++++++-------------
>>>  include/linux/power/max8903_charger.h |  6 +++---
>>>  2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/power/max8903_charger.c
>>> b/drivers/power/max8903_charger.c
>>> index 0a5b0e1..dbd911c4 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/power/max8903_charger.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/power/max8903_charger.c
>>> @@ -211,27 +211,24 @@ static int max8903_probe(struct platform_device
>>> *pdev)
>>>      }
>>>
>>>      if (pdata->dc_valid) {
>>> -        if (pdata->dok && gpio_is_valid(pdata->dok) &&
>>> -                pdata->dcm && gpio_is_valid(pdata->dcm)) {
>>> +        if (pdata->dok && gpio_is_valid(pdata->dok)) {
>>>              gpio = pdata->dok; /* PULL_UPed Interrupt */
>>>              ta_in = gpio_get_value(gpio) ? 0 : 1;
>>> +        } else {
>>> +            dev_err(dev, "When DC is wired, DOK should"
>>> +                    " be wired as well.\n");
>>
>> Just found one nit. Don't split the strings.
>>         dev_err(dev,
>>                 "When DC is wired, DOK should be wired as well.\n");
> I saw that one as well when I ran checkpatch, however I thought if I
> changed it then I would get a warning about the line being > 80 chars.
> So wasn't sure which direction to go.

Checkpatch shouldn't complain on strings so if you move the string to
next line, it should be ok.

Best regards,
Krzysztof