Re: [PATCH v5 4/5] typec: tcpm: Represent source supply through power_supply

[Guenter Roeck]

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