linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] power: supply: qcom_battmgr: improve charge control threshold handling

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: <8f003bfb-8279-4c65-a271-c1e4a029043d@packett.cool>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2025 00:46:13 -0300
From: Val Packett <val@...kett.cool>
To: Sebastian Reichel <sebastian.reichel@...labora.com>,
 Sebastian Reichel <sre@...nel.org>, Fenglin Wu
 <fenglin.wu@....qualcomm.com>, Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>,
 linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] power: supply: qcom_battmgr: improve charge control
 threshold handling

On 11/2/25 9:48 PM, Sebastian Reichel wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Oct 2025 20:32:17 -0300, Val Packett wrote:
>> Currently, upowerd is unable to turn off the battery preservation mode[1]
>> on Qualcomm laptops, because it does that by setting the start threshold to
>> zero and the driver returns an error:
>>
>> pmic_glink.power-supply.0: charge control start threshold exceed range: [50 - 95]
>>
>> Kernel documentation says the end threshold must be clamped[2] but does
>> not say anything about the start threshold.
>>
>> [...]
> Applied, thanks!
>
> [1/2] power: supply: qcom_battmgr: clamp charge control thresholds
>        commit: 8809980fdc8a86070667032fa4005ee83f1c62f3
> [2/2] power: supply: qcom_battmgr: support disabling charge control
>        commit: 446fcf494691da4e685923e5fad02b163955fc0e


Woahh.. please revert the second one.

I'm sorry, I thought this was discussed here but apparently it was only 
on IRC and I must've assumed that the patches weren't going anywhere 
because of the lack of R-b..

The disable bit was acting rather strange after all, we'd need more work 
to figure out if that's even possible. Let's leave it at the clamp only.

~val