linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/7] power_supply: Add charger control properties

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20131028061807.GA31266@teo>
Date:	Sun, 27 Oct 2013 23:18:08 -0700
From:	Anton Vorontsov <anton@...msg.org>
To:	"Tc, Jenny" <jenny.tc@...el.com>
Cc:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Kim, Milo" <Milo.Kim@...com>, Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
	Jingoo Han <jg1.han@...sung.com>,
	Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>,
	Sachin Kamat <sachin.kamat@...aro.org>,
	Rupesh Kumar <rupesh.kumar@...ricsson.com>,
	Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
	Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@...il.com>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
	Rhyland Klein <rklein@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] power_supply: Add charger control properties

On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 03:36:36AM +0000, Tc, Jenny wrote:
> > But do we really want to control the chargers through the power_supply's user-visible
> > interface? It makes the whole power supply thing so complicated that I'm already losing
> > track of it. Right now I think I would prefer to move all the charger logic out of the psy
> > class.
> >
> 
> I think exposing properties make the logic generic, otherwise it may end up in having callback
> functions.
>
> Also there are some scenarios where the charging algorithm has to be in the
> user space.

Which scenarios?

Plus, I am more questioning if the power supply framework is the right
thing to control the *chargers*. Chargers are not the power supply to the
system or any device (well, except for the batteries themselves).

> Using the patch https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/25/204,
> the power supply change notification can be broadcasted. We can add notifier events
> for power_supply_register and thermal throttling. This way power_supply_charger.c can
> be a separate driver and it can listen to psy notifications to take actions.

If you ever need this particular notifier, I am OK with it (but I'll
consider applying it only together with some its users).

Basically, I am more against these three patches:

[PATCH 3/7] power_supply: add throttle state
[PATCH 2/7] power_supply: add charger cable properties
[PATCH 1/7] power_supply: Add charger control properties (enable_charger part)

These three add too much "charger" specifics to the power_supply stuff. I
think they deserve their own subsystem/class/whatever.

Also, the battid framework is written without any notion of device/driver
separation, uses global variables, and I suspect it should not exist at
all (psy_get_batt_prop function makes me think that you should just
register the i2c/spi/w1 battery with the power_supply and not use the
ad-hoc stuff).

Anton
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/