Message-ID: <1495636719.13570.1.camel@paulk.fr>
Date:   Wed, 24 May 2017 16:38:39 +0200
From:   Paul Kocialkowski <contact@...lk.fr>
To:     Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>
Cc:     Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
        Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "open list:ARM/Rockchip SoC..." <linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] ARM: dts: rockchip: Move cros-ec-sbs to
 rk3288-veyron-chromebook-sbs

Le mercredi 24 mai 2017 à 12:55 +0200, Heiko Stuebner a écrit :
> Am Sonntag, 7. Mai 2017, 20:00:42 CEST schrieb Paul Kocialkowski:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Le lundi 01 mai 2017 à 08:49 -0700, Doug Anderson a écrit :
> > > On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 7:07 AM, Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de> wrote:
> > > > Am Sonntag, 30. April 2017, 22:56:52 CEST schrieb Paul Kocialkowski:
> > > > > Le dimanche 30 avril 2017 à 22:37 +0200, Heiko Stuebner a écrit :
> > > > > > Hi Paul,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Am Sonntag, 30. April 2017, 20:30:52 CEST schrieb Paul Kocialkowski:
> > > > > > > This moves the cros-ec-sbs dtsi to a new rk3288-veyron-chromebook-
> > > > > > > sbs
> > > > > > > dtsi since it only concerns rk3288 veyron Chromebooks.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Other Chromebooks (such as the tegra124 nyans) also have sbs
> > > > > > > batteries
> > > > > > > and don't use this dtsi, that only makes sense when used with
> > > > > > > rk3288-veyron-chromebook anyway.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > That isn't true. The gru series (rk3399-based) also uses the
> > > > > > sbs-battery [0]. And while it is currently limited to Rockchip-based
> > > > > > Chromebooks it is nevertheless used on more than one platform, so
> > > > > > the probability is high that it will be used in future series as
> > > > > > well.
> > > > > 
> > > > > That's good to know, but as pointed out, other cros devices are using
> > > > > a
> > > > > sbs
> > > > > battery without this header, so such a generic name isn't really a
> > > > > good
> > > > > fit.
> > > 
> > > It would be interesting to know if the "retry-count" ought to be the
> > > same across all Chromebooks.  I guess you could argue that maybe
> > > someone found it needed to be 10 in all "nyan" variants and needed to
> > > be 1 in all "veyron" variants, but it seems more likely that the
> > > difference is arbitrary, or that one of the two values would work for
> > > everyone.  It sure looks like we've just been copying values from
> > > device to device.  Given that all the "veyron" devices have vastly
> > > different batteries (and probably all the nyan ones too), it seems
> > > likely there ought to be one value.
> > 
> > Well, the retry-count is a maximum number of retries to detect a status
> > change
> > on external power connection/disconnection. From my experience, it seems
> > that
> > nyans do indeed more retries to detect the change than veyrons, on average.
> > 
> > I don't think setting this value to 1 is very reasonable (in the end, that's
> > a
> > number of seconds), because power supply status changes tend to take a few
> > seconds to reflect on the battery status.
> > 
> > I think setting a high value (like 10) would always work and either way, the
> > status detection mechanism stops itself as soon as a change is detected (it
> > turns out this is not a good idea for bq27xxx batteries, because they go
> > from
> > charging to full in the first seconds after AC connection instead of
> > directly
> > reporting full, when full), but let's assume this is okay for sbs (and maybe
> > change it later).
> > 
> > > In terms of setting the "charger", that also could potentially be
> > > something that could be for all Chromebooks, or at least older ones
> > > that don't have their charger implemented by the type C driver.  ...or
> > > nyan devices could simply have a line in their dts like:
> > > 
> > > &battery {
> > >   power-supplies = <&charger>;
> > > };
> > 
> > That's true, but I think it makes as much sense to keep the whole binding.
> > 
> > In my opinion, the only reason to have a separate dtsi for this binding is
> > that
> > veyrons have another dtsi for chromebooks where this binding should be.
> > However,
> > it cannot be there because of minnie using another battery IC.
> > 
> > So my approach here would be to make it common for devices where other major
> > parts are also common, so we can avoid duplication when most of the device-
> > tree
> > is already common. In cases where most of the device-tree is specific to a
> > device, I think the binding should be duplicated. This is done already for
> > lots
> > of other components that could be made (somewhat) common anyway.
> > 
> > > 
> > > > > Note that &charger has to be defined (after my subsequent patches),
> > > > > which
> > > > > it is
> > > > > for devices that also include rk3288-veyron-chromebook, but not
> > > > > necessarily
> > > > > others.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Overall, I think having one -sbs dtsi file makes sense here because
> > > > > there
> > > > > is
> > > > > already a rk3288-veyron-chromebook dtsi that veyron chromebooks use.
> > > > > That
> > > > > file
> > > > > cannot contain the battery bindings because minnie has a different one
> > > > > and
> > > > > it
> > > > > would be a bit silly to copy it over all devices. That definitely
> > > > > makes
> > > > > sense.
> > > > > 
> > > > > As for other devices, I don't see why we should have a separate
> > > > > include
> > > > > file for
> > > > > the battery instead of having it in the device's dts. I think this
> > > > > should
> > > > > be the
> > > > > case on gru/kevin.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Also maybe not *all* gru-based devices will turn out to use a SBS
> > > > > battery,
> > > > > so it
> > > > > seems early to include this header in the gru dtsi.
> > > 
> > > For gru devices, we've moved to a "virtual sbs battery" provided by
> > > the EC.  I'm not 100% positive that everything will just magically
> > > work and be converted in the EC if we put a non-sbs battery on a board
> > > with this EC feature, but I would hope we'd convert everything
> > > properly.
> > 
> > Interesting and good to know!
> > 
> > > > > One last point, gru/kevin
> > > > > currently don't define a charger, which will break my subsequent patch
> > > > > (that is
> > > > > however needed for the veyrons that use this file).
> > > 
> > > Arguably this should be fixed.  On veyron-chromebook we just use
> > > "gpio-charger".  We didn't add a special charger driver w/ a property
> > > like "ti,external-control" since the only piece of information that
> > > Linux really needed from the charger was whether or not AC was
> > > connected.
> > 
> > Thanks for taking that choice, it indeed makes things easier on the kernel
> > side
> > whith no drawbacks.
> > 
> > > 
> > > > > To me, it seems that there's little advantage and major drawbacks in
> > > > > keeping
> > > > > this file the way it is.
> > > > 
> > > > I don't have any set opinion right now but after looking through the
> > > > other uses of the sbs-battery the cros-ec-sbs.dtsi snippet really seems
> > > > somewhat veyron/gru-specific - especially wrt. the retry-count values.
> > > > 
> > > > What I'm not sure about is whether it is actually better to keep the
> > > > include
> > > > around under a new name or just move the (rather tiny) sbs-battery node
> > > > into the relevant devicetrees directly, when there aren't that many
> > > > users
> > > > anyway.
> > > 
> > > I'm fine with whatever you guys choose to do here.  It's nice not to
> > > have copied "code", but with device tree sometimes copies are cleaner
> > > than trying to share something.
> > 
> > I definitely agree. I think copies are a good fit here because overall, we
> > have
> > enough disparity in the possible configurations among different SoC
> > platforms to
> > justify having one per device. So I believe it would make sense to make that
> > binding common *among the same SoC family*.
> 
> ok, so if I'm not mistaken it really looks like moving away from
> cros-sbs-battery might be the easiest solution and with seeing the
> different usages of the sbs-battery I tend to agree now :-) .
> 
> On the include vs. copy question it looks like we're tied as well with
> mickey, minnie (and fievel + tiger from 2017) not using the sbs-battery
> having local copies of the sbs-node in the affected devices really looks
> like the best option.
> 
> So I guess we should get gru + the sbs veyron-devices their own sbs-battery
> and then just drop te cros-ec-sbs.dtsi so that nobody else gets the idea
> of using it.

How about keeping the nodes for veyron chromebooks (except minnie, which is a
convertible anyway) in rk3288-veyron-chromebook-sbs as this patch initially
suggested, in addition to changes to gru dts?

Cheers!

-- 
Paul Kocialkowski, developer of free digital technology and hardware support

Website: https://www.paulk.fr/
Coding blog: https://code.paulk.fr/
Git repositories: https://git.paulk.fr/ https://git.code.paulk.fr/
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists