From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: k.kozlowski@samsung.com (Krzysztof Kozlowski) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 12:49:59 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 2/8] power_supply: sysfs: Use power_supply_*() API for accessing function attrs In-Reply-To: <20141015103217.GB14266@amd> References: <1413289246-31650-1-git-send-email-k.kozlowski@samsung.com> <1413289246-31650-3-git-send-email-k.kozlowski@samsung.com> <20141015103217.GB14266@amd> Message-ID: <1413370199.26771.4.camel@AMDC1943> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On ?ro, 2014-10-15 at 12:32 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Tue 2014-10-14 14:20:40, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > Replace direct calls to power supply function attributes with wrappers. > > Wrappers provide safe access access in case of unregistering the power > > supply (.e.g by removing the driver). Replace: > > - get_property -> power_supply_get_property > > - set_property -> power_supply_set_property > > - property_is_writeable -> power_supply_property_is_writeable > > > > Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski > > Acked-by: Pavel Machek Thanks for looking at patches. > > @@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ static ssize_t power_supply_show_property(struct device *dev, > > if (off == POWER_SUPPLY_PROP_TYPE) { > > value.intval = psy->type; > > } else { > > - ret = psy->get_property(psy, off, &value); > > + ret = power_supply_get_property(psy, off, &value); > > > > One thing.. Your power_supply_get_property (and friends) check for psy > == NULL. Is it neccessary / good idea? As far as I can tell, it should > not really be NULL... It is not necessary. I thought it would be a good behavior of such exported function. You're right that this shouldn't be NULL especially because previously it was dereferenced. Other existing power supply exported functions don't check this so maybe I shouldn't introduce inconsistency. I'll remove the check and re-spin. I'll found ugly typos in commit message anyway. Best regards, Krzysztof