lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Mar]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 4/5] typec: tcpm: Represent source supply through power_supply
From
Date
On 03/22/2018 03:40 AM, Adam Thomson wrote:
> On 22 March 2018 04:09, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>
>>> +static int tcpm_psy_set_prop(struct power_supply *psy,
>>> + enum power_supply_property psp,
>>> + const union power_supply_propval *val)
>>> +{
>>> + struct tcpm_port *port = power_supply_get_drvdata(psy);
>>> + int ret = 0;
>>> +
>>> + switch (psp) {
>>> + case POWER_SUPPLY_PROP_ONLINE:
>>> + ret = tcpm_psy_set_online(port, val);
>>> + break;
>>> + case POWER_SUPPLY_PROP_VOLTAGE_NOW:
>>> + if ((val->intval < (port->pps_data.min_volt * 1000)) ||
>>> + (val->intval > (port->pps_data.max_volt * 1000)))
>>> + ret = -EINVAL;
>>> + else
>>> + ret = tcpm_pps_set_out_volt(port, (val->intval / 1000));
>>> + break;
>>> + case POWER_SUPPLY_PROP_CURRENT_NOW:
>>> + if (val->intval > (port->pps_data.max_curr * 1000))
>>> + ret = -EINVAL;
>>> + else
>>> + ret = tcpm_pps_set_op_curr(port, (val->intval / 1000));
>>
>> I am really not a friend of excessive ( ).
>
> Yes, I got that. :) I am of the opinion that they should be used to enforce
> precedence. This to me is good coding practice and makes it unambiguous for the
> reader. That's why I use them as above. Do you think the above uses make it
> harder to understand or more difficult to maintain?
>
It confuses me and makes me think I am missing something, and causes me to miss
the _real_ problems. If the compiler is not able to enforce precedence, even more so
in situations like the above, I think it is about time to dump it.

Either case, your call to make. I wont give patches with excessive ( ) a Reviewed-by:,
but then others can review the code.

Thanks,
Guenter

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-03-22 14:21    [W:0.067 / U:0.188 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site