Re: [PATCH v10 1/4] battery: Add the battery hooking API

[Ognjen Galic <smclt30p@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 12:59:45PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 11:52 AM, Ognjen Galic <smclt30p@gmail.com> wrote:
> > This is a patch that implements a generic hooking API for the
> > generic ACPI battery driver.
> >
> > With this new generic API, drivers can expose platform specific
> > behaviour via sysfs attributes in /sys/class/power_supply/BATn/
> > in a generic way.
> >
> > A perfect example of the need for this API are Lenovo ThinkPads.
> >
> > Lenovo ThinkPads have a ACPI extension that allows the setting of
> > start and stop charge thresholds in the EC and battery firmware
> > via ACPI. The thinkpad_acpi module can use this API to expose
> > sysfs attributes that it controls inside the ACPI battery driver
> > sysfs tree, under /sys/class/power_supply/BATN/.
> >
> > The file drivers/acpi/battery.h has been moved to
> > include/acpi/battery.h and the includes inside ac.c, sbs.c, and
> > battery.c have been adjusted to reflect that.
> >
> > When drivers hooks into the API, the API calls add_battery() for
> > each battery in the system that passes it a acpi_battery
> > struct. Then, the drivers can use device_create_file() to create
> > new sysfs attributes with that struct and identify the batteries
> > for per-battery attributes.
> > ---
> > v7:
> > * Implemented mutual exclusion for hooking methods and battery
> > callbacks
> > * Fixed a BUG where errors in other modules would occur when the
> > modules that depend on battery get unloaded
> >
> > v8:
> > * Use list_for_each_safe instead of list_for_each for the module
> > exit function where deletion of nodes occurs
> >
> > v9:
> > * No changes in this patch in v9
> >
> > v10:
> > * Fix compiler warnings in Intel's 0-day CI
> 
> You're sending new revisions too fast for me to review them. :-/

I'm sorry for the flooding, but it's really just small changes here and
there, mainly syntax and style changes and some compiler warnings on 
Intel's 0-day CI. Nothing major.

> 
> Please stop doing this for a while until you get a response from me for the v10.

There are no major issues with v10 that I can see, so I will wait for
your review.

> 
> Thanks,

Thank YOU for your time!

> Rafael