Re: [PATCH v4 01/10] power: supplies: bq27xxx: rename BQ27500 allow for deprecation in future.

[Sebastian Reichel]

Hi,

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 09:25:01AM +1100, Chris Lapa wrote:
> On 10/1/17 7:58 pm, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > On Tuesday 10 January 2017 16:25:29 Chris Lapa wrote:
> > > From: Chris Lapa <chris@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > 
> > > The BQ275XX definition exists only to satisfy backwards compatibility.
> > > 
> > > tested: yes
> > 
> > Instead "tested: yes" we use: "Tested-by: name <email>" line.
> > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Chris Lapa <chris@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Acked-by: Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Reviewed-by: Andrew F. Davis <afd@xxxxxx>
> > 
> 
> Doh, I went through the log and thought I saw 'tested: yes' being used
> previously. Want me to resend?

If a respin is needed, please fix it. Also the patches still use
"supplies" instead of "supply" in the patch subject. I would have
fixed this while applying, but this (PATCH 1/10) actually looks
fishy to me:

> -       { "bq27500", BQ27500 },
> -       { "bq27510", BQ27510 },
> -       { "bq27520", BQ27510 },
> +       { "bq27500", BQ275XX },
> +       { "bq27510", BQ275XX },
> +       { "bq27520", BQ275XX },

Previously bq27500 and bq27510/bq27520 had different type ids,
while after the patch both use the same. The patch description
does not mention why this is ok and it actually looks incorrect.
I guess we need to introduce BQ2750X and BQ2751X for backwards
compatibility instead?

-- Sebastian

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature