linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/9] dt-bindings: mfd: document ASUS Transformer EC

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: <9dcc308d-f87d-4706-90ae-df3669aea224@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2026 13:48:45 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Svyatoslav Ryhel <clamor95@...il.com>
Cc: Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley
 <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
 Pavel Machek <pavel@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
 Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
 Sebastian Reichel <sre@...nel.org>, Michał Mirosław
 <mirq-linux@...e.qmqm.pl>, Ion Agorria <ion@...rria.com>,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-input@...r.kernel.org, linux-leds@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/9] dt-bindings: mfd: document ASUS Transformer EC

On 10/02/2026 12:54, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 10/02/2026 12:40, Svyatoslav Ryhel wrote:
>>>>
>>>> So you propose introduce a compatible for every single ec used in
>>>> transformers instead of simply disable unpopulated functions? And how
>>>> then battery and charger can reach monitored cell if they have no
>>>> dedicated node?
>>>
>>> Just like for other bindings for nodes without resources, fold into
>>> parent. This is already explained in writing bindings, so you could have
>>> just read that. I will pass with answering more questions till you read
>>> that doc.
>>>
>>
>> Unfolding asus,ec-pad and asus,ec-dock will result in this list:
>>
>> asus,tf101-dock-ec
>> asus,tf101g-dock-ec
>> asus,sl101-pad-ec
>> asus,tf201-pad-ec
>> asus,tf201-dock-ec
>> asus,tf300t-pad-ec
>> asus,tf300t-dock-ec
>> asus,tf300tg-pad-ec
>> asus,tf300tg-dock-ec
>> asus,tf300tl-pad-ec
>> asus,tf300tl-dock-ec
>> asus,tf600t-pad-ec
>> asus,tf700t-pad-ec
>> asus,tf700t-dock-ec
>> asus,tf701t-pad-ec
>> asus,p1801-t-pad-ec
>>
>> with minor variations in populated cells. Is this acceptible?
> 
> 
> Yes, this looks correct.

Update: with fallback-expressed compatibility when same interface and/or
superset of features.

Best regards,
Krzysztof