Hi

On Mon, Nov 25, 2024 at 06:59:57PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> cc Krzysztof, author of the mentioned commit.

Yes, apologies for overlooking to cc him.

> On Monday 25 November 2024 17:29:30 Sicelo A. Mhlongo wrote:
> > Commit 243f8ffc883a1 ("power: supply: bq27xxx_battery: Notify also about
> > status changes") intended to notify userspace when the status changes,
> > based on the flags register. However, the cached state is updated too
> > early, before the flags are tested for any changes. Remove the premature
> > update.
> >
> > Fixes: 243f8ffc883a1 ("power: supply: bq27xxx_battery: Notify also about status changes")
> > Signed-off-by: Sicelo A. Mhlongo <absicsz@???>
> > ---
> > drivers/power/supply/bq27xxx_battery.c | 1 -
> > 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
> >

> > diff --git a/drivers/power/supply/bq27xxx_battery.c b/drivers/power/supply/bq27xxx_battery.c
> > index 40c5ac7a1118..b2c65fe43d5c 100644
> > --- a/drivers/power/supply/bq27xxx_battery.c
> > +++ b/drivers/power/supply/bq27xxx_battery.c
> > @@ -1913,7 +1913,6 @@ static void bq27xxx_battery_update_unlocked(struct bq27xxx_device_info *di)
> >          cache.flags = -1; /* read error */
> >      if (cache.flags >= 0) {
> >          cache.capacity = bq27xxx_battery_read_soc(di);
> > -        di->cache.flags = cache.flags;

> >

> >          /*
> >           * On gauges with signed current reporting the current must be
> > -- 
> > 2.45.2

Is there anything that still needs to be done to move this patch along?

Perhaps for clarification, in the middle of bq27xxx_battery_update_unlocked,
there is:

    if ((di->cache.capacity != cache.capacity) ||
        (di->cache.flags != cache.flags) ||
        (di->last_status.intval != status.intval)) {
        di->last_status.intval = status.intval;
        power_supply_changed(di->bat);
    }

    if (memcmp(&di->cache, &cache, sizeof(cache)) != 0)
        di->cache = cache;

which compares the new value of cache.flags with the previously cached
values in di->cache, and calls power_supply_changed() if they are
different. For the flags, this test is currently not working, because by
the time it is run, di->cache.flags has already been updated with the
value in cache.flags, so the flags condition is always short-circuited
in the test. Hence my patch ensures di->cache.flags is not updated
before the test.

The flags are correctly updated after the test, in the

        di->cache = cache;

line, so the removed line is simply not needed.

If there is any adjustment necessary, I will happily do so.

Kind Regards
Sicelo A. Mhlongo