Re: [PATCH 4/4] platform/x86: thinkpad_acpi: support inhibit-charge

From: "Thomas Weißschuh" <linux@weissschuh.net>
To: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Sebastian Reichel <sre@kernel.org>,
	ibm-acpi-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
	platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org,
	Mark Gross <markgross@kernel.org>,
	Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@hmh.eng.br>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linrunner@gmx.net,
	bberg@redhat.com, hadess@hadess.net, markpearson@lenovo.com,
	nicolopiazzalunga@gmail.com, njoshi1@lenovo.com,
	smclt30p@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] platform/x86: thinkpad_acpi: support inhibit-charge
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2021 13:18:09 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <754b4466-4636-4a51-980a-5e5c21953f44@t-8ch.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <09a66da1-1a8b-a668-3179-81670303ea37@redhat.com>

Hi Hans,

On 2021-11-16 11:58+0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Thank you for working on this!

Thanks for the review!

> On 11/13/21 11:42, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > @@ -9673,6 +9711,11 @@ static ssize_t charge_behaviour_show(struct device *dev,
> >  			return -ENODEV;
> >  		if (ret)
> >  			active = POWER_SUPPLY_CHARGE_BEHAVIOUR_FORCE_DISCHARGE;
> > +	} else if (available & BIT(POWER_SUPPLY_CHARGE_BEHAVIOUR_INHIBIT_CHARGE)) {
> 
> The use of else-if here seems wrong, this suggests that batterys can never
> support both force-discharge and inhibit-charge behavior, which they can, so this
> means that active can now never get set to BEHAVIOUR_INHIBIT_CHARGE on
> batteries which support both.
> 
> So AFAICT the else part of the else if should be dropped here, making this
> a new stand alone if block.

Indeed, I'll fix this logic for v2.

Thanks,
Thomas