From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754424AbbG3RHt (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Jul 2015 13:07:49 -0400 Received: from bear.ext.ti.com ([192.94.94.41]:44071 "EHLO bear.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752772AbbG3RHq (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Jul 2015 13:07:46 -0400 Message-ID: <55BA59C6.4010604@ti.com> Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 12:07:18 -0500 From: "Andrew F. Davis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?UTF-8?B?UGFsaSBSb2jDoXI=?= CC: Sebastian Reichel , Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov , David Woodhouse , Dan Murphy , , Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] power: bq27xxx_battery: Add support for additional bq27xxx family devices References: <1438112353-19704-1-git-send-email-afd@ti.com> <1438112353-19704-6-git-send-email-afd@ti.com> <201507282159.30013@pali> In-Reply-To: <201507282159.30013@pali> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 07/28/2015 02:59 PM, Pali Rohár wrote: > On Tuesday 28 July 2015 21:39:12 Andrew F. Davis wrote: >> Add support for additional devices and register equivalent family >> devices including the bq27010, bq27210, bq272500, bq27510, bq27520, > ^^^^^^ > maybe incorrect number? Yeah, that's what I get for not copy/pasting :) >> bq27530, bq27531, bq27541, bq27542, bq27546, bq27545, bq27441, >> bq27421, and the bq27641. >> >> To facilitate this process the register mapings have been moved to >> tables and other small cleanups have been made. >> >> Signed-off-by: Andrew F. Davis >> --- > >> static const struct i2c_device_id bq27xxx_id[] = { >> - { "bq27200", BQ27000 }, /* bq27200 is same as bq27000, but with i2c >> */ + { "bq27200", BQ27000 }, >> + { "bq27210", BQ27010 }, >> { "bq27500", BQ27500 }, >> - { "bq27425", BQ27425 }, >> - { "bq27742", BQ27742 }, >> - { "bq27510", BQ27510 }, >> + { "bq27510", BQ27500 }, >> + { "bq27520", BQ27500 }, >> + { "bq27530", BQ27530 }, >> + { "bq27531", BQ27530 }, >> + { "bq27541", BQ27541 }, >> + { "bq27542", BQ27541 }, >> + { "bq27546", BQ27541 }, >> + { "bq27742", BQ27541 }, >> + { "bq27545", BQ27545 }, >> + { "bq27421", BQ27421 }, >> + { "bq27425", BQ27421 }, >> + { "bq27441", BQ27421 }, >> + { "bq27621", BQ27421 }, >> {}, >> }; > > I'm trying to understand comparator which you used for sorting these > values... but I do not see any logic here. What about sorting list by > first value? Now it is long list of device names and for better ability > to read it, it would be better to have it in some order. > It is sorted first by the family release date, then numerically within family. The BQ27421 family seems out of order but it appears to be the newest line. >> -enum bq27xxx_chip { BQ27000, BQ27500, BQ27425, BQ27742, BQ27510 }; >> +enum bq27xxx_chip { >> + BQ27000, /* bq27000, bq27200 */ >> + BQ27010, /* bq27010, bq27210 */ >> + BQ27500, /* bq27500, bq27510, bq27520 */ >> + BQ27530, /* bq27530, bq27531 */ >> + BQ27541, /* bq27541, bq27542, bq27546, bq27742 */ >> + BQ27545, /* bq27545 */ >> + BQ27421, /* bq27421, bq27425, bq27441, bq27621 */ >> +}; >> > > Maybe same here? Putting BQ27421 before BQ27500? > -- Andrew F. Davis