Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:24:16 +0300 | From | Anton Vorontsov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/5] power: RFC: introduce a new power API |
| |
On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 02:41:39AM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote: [...] > > > On Sun, 2007-12-16 at 21:24 -0500, Andres Salomon wrote: > > > > This API has the power_supply drivers device their own device_attribute > > > > list; I find this to be a lot more flexible and cleaner. > > > > I don't see how this is more flexible and cleaner. See below. > > > > > > For example, > > > > rather than having a function with a huge switch statement (as olpc_battery > > > > currently has), we have separate callback functions. > > > > Is this an improvement? Look into ds2760_battery.c. I scared to > > imagine what it will look like after conversion. > > Why? It would not look bad after conversion. Basically: > > static ssize_t ds2760_battery_get_status(struct device *dev, > struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf) > { > struct ds2760_device_info *di = to_ds2760_device_info(psy); > return power_supply_status_str(di->charge_status, buf); > } > static ssize_t ds2760_battery_get_voltage_now(struct device *dev, > struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf) > { > struct ds2760_device_info *di = to_ds2760_device_info(psy); > ds2760_battery_read_status(di); > return sprintf(buf, "%d\n", di->voltage_uV); > } > > ....an so on. > > If I wanted to get really clever, I could do: > > #define DS2760_CALLBACK(name, fmt, var) \ > static ssize_t ds2760_battery_get_##name(struct device *dev, \ > struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf) \ > { \ > struct ds2760_device_info *di = to_ds2760_device_info(psy); \ > ds2760_battery_read_status(di); \ > return sprintf(buf, fmt, var); \ > } > > DS2760_CALLBACK(voltage_now, "%d\n", di->voltage_uV) > DS2760_CALLBACK(current_now, "%d\n", di->current_uA) > > etc.. but, I'm not trying to compress lines of code, I'm trying > to ensure things are readable.
Hehe, look: http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/4/11/397
These macros are indeed what I've tried to avoid, dozen open-coded similar functions not a good option either. I also tried to avoid "function per property" stuff...
[lots of sense snipped]
I see your point now. Basically, now I'm encourage to think just one more time: is there third (better) option in addition to current and this? I still hope there is some not obvious, but elegant solution. If there isn't, I'm ready to surrender and will help with everything I can.
Thanks!
-- Anton Vorontsov email: cbou@mail.ru backup email: ya-cbou@yandex.ru irc://irc.freenode.net/bd2
| |