Re: [PATCH 2/5] power: supply: bd71828: Fix current direction
Matti Vaittinen <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.linux-pm,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 12/08/2026 11:25, Andreas Kemnade wrote: > On Wed, 12 Aug 2026 11:17:36 +0300 > Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 10:10:50AM +0200, Andreas Kemnade wrote: >>> On Mon, 10 Aug 2026 13:09:07 +0300 >>> Matti Vaittinen <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> ... >> >>> That code is complicated. What about a generic 16bit non_2complemented sign >>> to 2-complemented sign function/macro. Such would have prevented the error >>> in the first places. So &vals[i] = signbit_to_2complement(be16_to_cpu(tmp_curr), 15) * pwr->curr_factor >> >> Do you mean existing sign_extend32() from bitops.h? >> > > I don't think it does what is needed. Here we have > > 0000 0000 0000 0001 -> 1 > Usually we have > > 1111 1111 1111 1111 -> -1 > > but here > > 1000 0000 0000 0001 -> -1 > > If I do understand things correctly. I not find something useful > in bitops.h. > Thanks for the review and testing Andreas! We share the same (mis?)understanding. ;) I am not sure this is so widely used it'd warrant a generic macro. I am afraid that if someone encountered similar design, he would not expect a generic macro to exist. My gut feeling is that this is too marginal to be widely useful. I am not against it though, if someone wants to implement it. What comes to complexity - I agree. The code is messy, but mostly because of "clever hacks" done so values are in arrays indexed by loop. I, however, would like to see a minimal backportable fix, and potentially, larger clean-up which can then go in as a feature, without any rush. Yours, -- Matti -- Matti Vaittinen Linux kernel developer at ROHM Semiconductors Oulu Finland ~~ When things go utterly wrong vim users can always type :help! ~~