linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 5/8] power: supply: qcom_battmgr: Add charge control support

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: <3df56548-49ea-498c-9ee3-b7e1d2d85d2e@oss.qualcomm.com>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2025 17:37:58 +0800
From: Fenglin Wu <fenglin.wu@....qualcomm.com>
To: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org>,
        Sebastian Reichel <sre@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
        Conor Dooley
 <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
        Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Subbaraman Narayanamurthy <subbaraman.narayanamurthy@....qualcomm.com>,
        David Collins <david.collins@....qualcomm.com>,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, kernel@....qualcomm.com,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/8] power: supply: qcom_battmgr: Add charge control
 support

Thanks for reviewing the change!

On 5/30/2025 4:48 PM, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> On 30/05/2025 08:35, Fenglin Wu via B4 Relay wrote:
>> From: Fenglin Wu <fenglin.wu@....qualcomm.com>
>>
>> Add charge control support for SM8550 and X1E80100. It's supported
>> with below two power supply properties:
>>
>> charge_control_end_threshold: SOC threshold at which the charging
>> should be terminated.
>>
>> charge_control_start_threshold: SOC threshold at which the charging
>> should be resumed.
>
> Maybe this is very obvious to battery charger experts but what does 
> SOC mean here ?
>
> Reading your patch you pass a "int soc" and compare it to a threshold 
> value, without 'soc' having an obvious meaning.
>
> Its a threshold right ? Why not just call it threshold ?
>
"SOC" stands for battery State of Charge, I will rephrase the commit 
text for better explanation.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Fenglin Wu <fenglin.wu@....qualcomm.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/power/supply/qcom_battmgr.c | 256 
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>>   1 file changed, 248 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>
>> -    if (battmgr->variant == QCOM_BATTMGR_SC8280XP)
>> +    if (battmgr->variant == QCOM_BATTMGR_SC8280XP ||
>> +            battmgr->variant == QCOM_BATTMGR_X1E80100)
>
> Please run your series through checkpatch
>
I actually did that before sending the patches out. I run checkpatch 
with below two commands and I saw no issues:

git format -1 xxxx --stdtout | ./script/checkpatch.pl -

b4 prep --check

Can you let me know what specific command that you ran with it?

> 0004-power-supply-qcom_battmgr-Add-state_of_health-proper.patch has no 
> obvious style problems and is ready for submission.
> CHECK: Alignment should match open parenthesis
> #95: FILE: drivers/power/supply/qcom_battmgr.c:521:
> +    if (battmgr->variant == QCOM_BATTMGR_SC8280XP ||
> +            battmgr->variant == QCOM_BATTMGR_X1E80100)
>
>>
>> +static int qcom_battmgr_set_charge_start_threshold(struct 
>> qcom_battmgr *battmgr, int soc)
>> +{
>> +    u32 target_soc, delta_soc;
>> +    int ret;
>> +
>> +    if (soc < CHARGE_CTRL_START_THR_MIN ||
>> +            soc > CHARGE_CTRL_START_THR_MAX) {
>> +        dev_err(battmgr->dev, "charge control start threshold exceed 
>> range: [%u - %u]\n",
>> +                CHARGE_CTRL_START_THR_MIN, CHARGE_CTRL_START_THR_MAX);
>> +        return -EINVAL;
>> +    }
>
> 'soc' is what - a threshold as far as I can tell.

I will update it with a more meaningful name

>>
>>       if (opcode == BATTMGR_NOTIFICATION)
>>           qcom_battmgr_notification(battmgr, data, len);
>> -    else if (battmgr->variant == QCOM_BATTMGR_SC8280XP)
>> +    else if (battmgr->variant == QCOM_BATTMGR_SC8280XP ||
>> +            battmgr->variant == QCOM_BATTMGR_X1E80100)
>>           qcom_battmgr_sc8280xp_callback(battmgr, data, len);
>>       else
>>           qcom_battmgr_sm8350_callback(battmgr, data, len);
>> @@ -1333,7 +1560,8 @@ static void qcom_battmgr_pdr_notify(void *priv, 
>> int state)
>>   static const struct of_device_id qcom_battmgr_of_variants[] = {
>>       { .compatible = "qcom,sc8180x-pmic-glink", .data = (void 
>> *)QCOM_BATTMGR_SC8280XP },
>>       { .compatible = "qcom,sc8280xp-pmic-glink", .data = (void 
>> *)QCOM_BATTMGR_SC8280XP },
>> -    { .compatible = "qcom,x1e80100-pmic-glink", .data = (void 
>> *)QCOM_BATTMGR_SC8280XP },
>> +    { .compatible = "qcom,x1e80100-pmic-glink", .data = (void 
>> *)QCOM_BATTMGR_X1E80100 },
>> +    { .compatible = "qcom,sm8550-pmic-glink", .data = (void 
>> *)QCOM_BATTMGR_SM8550 },
>
> Please separate compat string addition from functional changes.
>
The compatible string "qcom,sm8550-pmic-glink" has been present in the 
binding for a while and it was added as a fallback of "qcom,pmic-glink". 
The battmgr function has been also supported well on SM8550 for a while. 
The change here is only specifying a different match data for SM8550 so 
the driver can handle some new features differently. Does it also need 
to add it in a separate change? If so,  this change would be split into 
following 3 patches I think:

1) add QCOM_BATTMGR_SM8550/X1E80100 variants definition in 
qcom_battmgr_variant.

2) add compatible string with corresponding match data for SM8550.

3) add the charge control function support.

>>       /* Unmatched devices falls back to QCOM_BATTMGR_SM8350 */
>>       {}
>>   };
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> 2.34.1
>>
>>
>>
>