| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <c967c22a-b891-4722-9180-75431137a263@oss.qualcomm.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2025 13:43:38 +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
On 5/30/2025 6:11 PM, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> 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;
>
Thanks, I will run the commands to check before sending next patch
>>
>>> 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.
I understand that adding a new compatible will have to be done in a
separate change. However, when updating match data of an existing
compatible due to a new feature, isn't it better to include it within
the new feature?
let me know if you think that having 3 separate changes above is more
appropriate.
Thanks
>
> ---
> bod
Powered by blists - more mailing lists