Message-id: <551518C6.9030804@samsung.com>
Date:	Fri, 27 Mar 2015 17:45:58 +0900
From:	Beomho Seo <beomho.seo@...sung.com>
To:	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Cc:	Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>,
	Sebastian Reichel <sre@...nel.org>,
	Jaewon Kim <jaewon02.kim@...sung.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-input@...r.kernel.org,
	Inki Dae <inki.dae@...sung.com>,
	SangBae Lee <sangbae90.lee@...sung.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
	Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 2/5] power: max77843_charger: Add Max77843 charger
 device driver

On 03/27/2015 04:57 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Mar 2015, Beomho Seo wrote:
>> On 03/26/2015 10:54 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
>>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2015, Beomho Seo wrote:
>>>> On 03/24/2015 05:38 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>> 2015-03-24 9:01 GMT+01:00 Beomho Seo <beomho.seo@...sung.com>:
>>>>>> On 03/10/2015 10:44 PM, Beomho Seo wrote:
>>>>>>> On 03/09/2015 09:13 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>>>>> On pon, 2015-03-09 at 20:46 +0900, Beomho Seo wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 03/09/2015 08:02 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 2015-03-09 1:35 GMT+01:00 Beomho Seo <beomho.seo@...sung.com>:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/08/2015 05:13 AM, Sebastian Reichel wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 07:10:35PM +0900, Jaewon Kim wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Beomho Seo <beomho.seo@...sung.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This patch adds device driver of max77843 charger. This driver provide
>>>>>>>>>>>>> initialize each charging mode(e.g. fast charge, top-off mode and constant
>>>>>>>>>>>>> charging mode so on.). Additionally, control charging paramters to use
>>>>>>>>>>>>> i2c interface.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Sebastian Reichel <sre@...nel.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Beomho Seo <beomho.seo@...sung.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Reviewed-By: Sebastian Reichel <sre@...nel.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I can't take it as is, since it depends on the private header file
>>>>>>>>>>>> of PATCHv1.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -- Sebastian
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This patch reviewed by Sebastian.
>>>>>>>>>>> Could you Please merge that your git tree ?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ... and again we are adding a new driver for very similar chipset to
>>>>>>>>>> already supported. I looked at spec and the charger's registers are
>>>>>>>>>> almost the same as for max77693. Their layout and addresses are the
>>>>>>>>>> same. I see some minor differences, probably the most important would
>>>>>>>>>> be different values current (fast-charge, top-off). But still 90% of
>>>>>>>>>> registers are the same... Do we really have to add new driver?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>> Krzysztof
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your comment. As you say, both chip set are similar.
>>>>>>>>> But new driver need for support max77843. It is support different below
>>>>>>>>> - Provide Battery presence information.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Another set of power supply properties could be added for that chip.
>>>>>>>> This way the get_property() function would be the same but actually the
>>>>>>>> POWER_SUPPLY_PROP_PRESENT won't be called for max77693.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - Can OTG FET control.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Where the OTG FET feature is it enabled in your driver? I couldn't find
>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry. This driver don't control OTG FET feature.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - Bigger Fast charge current, Top Off current Threshold selection.
>>>>>>>>> - Various and bigger OTG current limitation.
>>>>>>>>> - Bigger primary charger termination voltage setting.
>>>>>>>>> - Different maximum input current limit selection(Different step).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, I mentioned some of these differences (the Fast/top-off
>>>>>>>> differences). These are differences in values so it does not require new
>>>>>>>> driver. There is need to develop new driver just to support different
>>>>>>>> current (3.0 A instead of 2.1 A) or voltage threshold.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They are different charging current, OTG current limitation, top off current,
>>>>>>> charging limitation value. In case OTG current limitation different not
>>>>>>> limitation value but using register bit(max77843 use[7:6] max77693 use[7]
>>>>>>> bit only). Even if this driver not support all feature, some register
>>>>>>> different with max77693(support value, use register bit).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If this driver will combined with max77693 may even be beneficial for
>>>>>>> new Maxim driver. But the present, this driver is related with
>>>>>>> max77843 core driver and max77843-regulator. So I hope this driver
>>>>>>> merge first. And then will extend two driver(max77843 charger and max77693 charger).
>>>>>
>>>>> I still prefer merging common drivers into one instead of creating
>>>>> some more of them.
>>>>> However I understand your point and I am not entirely opposed against.
>>>>> Especially that you invested quite a bit of time for developing this
>>>>> and my feedback was quite late. To summarize I am fine with your
>>>>> approach.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> Krzysztof
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear Lee Jones,
>>>>
>>>> Could you please merge that your git tree ?
>>>
>>> Sorry, I'm lost.  Why am I taking this though the MFD tree?  What
>>> patches are left?  Where are they going?  Am I taking any other
>>> patches?
>>>
>>
>> Max77843 charger driver is max77843 mfd core dependency.
> 
> What kind of dependancy?  Runtime or build?  Where is the patch that
> it depends on?  Is it in -next for in Mainline already?
> 

Build. Max77843 charger driver use max77843-private.h. It is in for-mfd-next branch.

c7f585f mfd: max77843: Add max77843 MFD driver core driver

>> If you think this patch will suitable for battery tree(or other tree),
>> I would like request for merge battery tree.
> 
> If this patch has no build dependencies on patches which are in -next,
> but not in Mainline then it will have to go in via the same tree that
> the dependencies were applied to.  If the dependencies are already in
> Mainline, or they are not build-deps, then it should go in via the
> correct tree, which I believe is Sebastian's tree.
> 
>> Also, I will send again this patch and device tree binding document.
> 
> Either way you should do that.  Mark them as RESEND instead of PATCH
> and apply all of the Acks you have accumulated so far.
> 

I will send new version because binding document have been modified.
As your comment patch will be mark.

Best regards
Beomho Seo
--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists