Re: [PATCH v2 01/11] power: supplies: bq275xx: rename BQ27500 allow for deprecation in future.

[Chris Lapa]

On 6/1/17 10:59 am, Sebastian Reichel wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 11:04:57AM +1100, Chris Lapa wrote:
> > From: Chris Lapa <chris@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > The BQ275XX definition exists only to satisfy backwards compatibility.
> >
> > tested: yes
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Chris Lapa <chris@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >  static bool bq27xxx_battery_overtemp(struct bq27xxx_device_info *di, u16 flags)
> >  {
> > -	if (di->chip == BQ27500 || di->chip == BQ27541 || di->chip == BQ27545)
> > +	if (di->chip == BQ275XX || di->chip == BQ27541 || di->chip == BQ27545)
> >  		return flags & (BQ27XXX_FLAG_OTC | BQ27XXX_FLAG_OTD);
> >  	if (di->chip == BQ27530 || di->chip == BQ27421)
> >  		return flags & BQ27XXX_FLAG_OT;
>
> This is really getting out of hands in this patchset. Please
> add a patch at the beginning of the patchset, which converts
> this construct into the following:
>
> switch (di->chip) {
> case A:
> case B:
> case C:
> case D:
>     return flags & (BQ27XXX_FLAG_OTC | BQ27XXX_FLAG_OTD);
> case E:
> case F:
>     return flags & BQ27XXX_FLAG_OT;
> default:
>     return false;
> }
>
> -- Sebastian

I was advised to move these tests into a function which I've done in the 
10th patch. I have no issue with changing it to a switch statement, but 
should I drop the bq27xxx_has_multiple_overtemp_flags() function I added?