Hi,

On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 11:29:19AM +1100, Chris Lapa wrote:
> On 6/1/17 10:59 am, Sebastian Reichel wrote:
> > Hi Chris,
> > 
> > On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 11:04:57AM +1100, Chris Lapa wrote:
> > > From: Chris Lapa <chris@lapa.com.au>
> > > 
> > > The BQ275XX definition exists only to satisfy backwards compatibility.
> > > 
> > > tested: yes
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Chris Lapa <chris@lapa.com.au>
> > > 
> > > [...]
> > > 
> > >  static bool bq27xxx_battery_overtemp(struct bq27xxx_device_info *di, u16 flags)
> > >  {
> > > -	if (di->chip == BQ27500 || di->chip == BQ27541 || di->chip == BQ27545)
> > > +	if (di->chip == BQ275XX || di->chip == BQ27541 || di->chip == BQ27545)
> > >  		return flags & (BQ27XXX_FLAG_OTC | BQ27XXX_FLAG_OTD);
> > >  	if (di->chip == BQ27530 || di->chip == BQ27421)
> > >  		return flags & BQ27XXX_FLAG_OT;
> > 
> > This is really getting out of hands in this patchset. Please
> > add a patch at the beginning of the patchset, which converts
> > this construct into the following:
> > 
> > switch (di->chip) {
> > case A:
> > case B:
> > case C:
> > case D:
> >     return flags & (BQ27XXX_FLAG_OTC | BQ27XXX_FLAG_OTD);
> > case E:
> > case F:
> >     return flags & BQ27XXX_FLAG_OT;
> > default:
> >     return false;
> > }
> > 
> > -- Sebastian
> > 
> 
> I was advised to move these tests into a function which I've done in the
> 10th patch. I have no issue with changing it to a switch statement, but
> should I drop the bq27xxx_has_multiple_overtemp_flags() function I added?

I'm fine with or without the extra function. But please introduce
the switch at the beginning of the patchseries, since it also eases
patch-reviewing.

-- Sebastian