From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755699Ab2GBQAE (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Jul 2012 12:00:04 -0400 Received: from smtp-out-137.synserver.de ([212.40.185.137]:1100 "EHLO smtp-out-137.synserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751252Ab2GBQAB (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Jul 2012 12:00:01 -0400 X-SynServer-TrustedSrc: 1 X-SynServer-AuthUser: lars@metafoo.de X-SynServer-PPID: 2598 Message-ID: <4FF1C666.40106@metafoo.de> Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2012 18:03:50 +0200 From: Lars-Peter Clausen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.4) Gecko/20120510 Icedove/10.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Saranya Gopal CC: cbou@mail.ru, dwmw2@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCHv3] bq27x00_battery: Add support for BQ27425 chip References: <1341075374-31704-1-git-send-email-saranya.gopal@intel.com> In-Reply-To: <1341075374-31704-1-git-send-email-saranya.gopal@intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 06/30/2012 06:56 PM, Saranya Gopal wrote: > This patch adds support for BQ27425 (TI) chip. This chip is same as > BQ27500 with few registers removed and register address map changed. > The data sheet for this chip is publicly available at > http://www.ti.com/product/bq27425-g1 > > Changes since v2: > Remove register address definitions of bq27425 and > use register address offset instead. > Add a small helper function to decide if the chip version > is higher than bq27200 to make it less noisy > to add another chip with similar register layout. > > Signed-off-by: Saranya Gopal Looks good to me. Reviewed-by: Lars-Peter Clausen Two minor suggestions though: >[...] > > #include > @@ -67,6 +68,10 @@ > #define BQ27500_FLAG_SOC1 BIT(2) /* State-of-Charge threshold 1 */ > #define BQ27500_FLAG_FC BIT(9) > > +/* bq27425 register addresses are same as bq27x00 addresses minus 4 */ > +#define BQ27425_REG_OFFSET 0x04 > +#define BQ27425_REG_SOC 0x1C > + I'd have added the offset to REG_SOC here, ... > @@ -150,6 +183,9 @@ static int bq27x00_battery_read_rsoc(struct bq27x00_device_info *di) > > if (di->chip == BQ27500) > rsoc = bq27x00_read(di, BQ27500_REG_SOC, false); > + else if (di->chip == BQ27425) > + rsoc = bq27x00_read(di, BQ27425_REG_SOC+BQ27425_REG_OFFSET, > + false); ... instead of here. > /* > + * Higher versions of the chip like BQ27425 and BQ27500 > + * differ from BQ27000 and BQ27200 in calculation of certain > + * parameters. Hence we need to check for the chip type. > + */ > +static bool is_chip_version_higher(struct bq27x00_device_info *di) Maybe a prefix for the function is not such a bad idea, e.g. bq27xxx_... > +{ > + if (di->chip == BQ27425 || di->chip == BQ27500) > + return true; > + return false; > +} > +