From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCH] power: supply: sbs-battery: simplify DT parsing Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2016 09:58:10 +0200 Message-ID: <4977026.Nm6AJ7K8UK@wuerfel> References: <20160906131643.1930011-1-arnd@arndb.de> <20160906235523.ff4opq56gg4ln6xv@earth> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: Received: from mout.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.187]:60496 "EHLO mout.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751174AbcIGH55 (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Sep 2016 03:57:57 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20160906235523.ff4opq56gg4ln6xv@earth> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: Sebastian Reichel Cc: Phil Reid , YH Huang , Joshua Clayton , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 1:55:23 AM CEST Sebastian Reichel wrote: > > Patch looks fine to me. Actually I already asked Phil to > implement your change [0]. I just queued it to power-supply's > for-next branch. > > [0] https://marc.info/?l=linux-pm&m=147273382018953&w=2 Glad to see we had the same thought. ;-) I see that we went for different defaults for chip->poll_retry_count: I concluded that '0' would be the correct default, while you suggested '1' in your reply. Can you double-check the code and see which one is right? Arnd