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: <3nauihzsyl2flnwiim7e42dhitoubhuzimrbdddasy4z7abqyi@sjm4gd3jtjpy>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2025 15:41:35 +0100
From: Sebastian Reichel <sebastian.reichel@...labora.com>
To: Val Packett <val@...kett.cool>
Cc: 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

Hi,

On Mon, Nov 03, 2025 at 12:46:13AM -0300, Val Packett wrote:
> 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.

DONE.

Greetings,

-- Sebastian

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)