[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7f001134-e099-492d-8ce5-4122d83a3de3@linaro.org>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2025 11:11:15 +0100
From: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org>
To: Fenglin Wu <fenglin.wu@....qualcomm.com>,
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
On 30/05/2025 10:37, Fenglin Wu wrote:
> 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?
do $KERNELPATH/scripts/checkpatch.pl --strict $file;
codespell $file;
>
>> 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.
For preference compats and functional change should be disjoined IMO.
---
bod
Powered by blists - more mailing lists