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 <ch...@lapa.com.au>
>>>
>>> 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 <ch...@lapa.com.au>
>>> ---
>>> 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
