Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: soc: qcom: qcom,pmic-glink: Add Kaanapali and Glymur compatibles

[Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@oss.qualcomm.com>]

On 10/28/25 10:16 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 28/10/2025 10:04, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>> On 10/28/25 9:36 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 28/10/2025 09:29, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Oct 27, 2025 at 02:22:49PM -0700, Anjelique Melendez wrote:
>>>>> Document the Kaanapali and Glymur compatibles used to describe the PMIC
>>>>> glink on each platform.
>>>>> Kaanapali will have the same battery supply properties as sm8550 platforms
>>>>> so define qcom,sm8550-pmic-glink as fallback for Kaanapali.
>>>>> Glymur will have the same battery supply properties as x1e80100 platforms
>>>>> so define qcom,x1e80100-pmic-glink as fallback for Glymur.
>>>>
>>>> What does it mean "battery supply properties"? Binding does not define
>>>> them, so both paragraphs do not help me understanding the logic behind
>>>> such choice at all.
>>>>
>>>> What are you describing in this binding? Battery properties? No, battery
>>>> properties go to the monitored-battery, right? So maybe you describe SW
>>>> interface...
>>>
>>> Or maybe you describe the device that it is different? >
>>
>> Certain versions of the pmic-glink stack expose services (such as battmgr)
>> which support different features (e.g. 8550 exposes state of health and
>> charge control, x1e exposes charge control, 8280 exposes neither)
>>
>> There seems to be a similar situation here
> 
> Then say that. Otherwise it feels like describing current Linux
> implementation and that would be obvious no-go. Why? Because then
> argument is: change Linux driver implementation.
> 
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Anjelique Melendez <anjelique.melendez@oss.qualcomm.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  .../devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,pmic-glink.yaml      | 7 +++++++
>>>>>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,pmic-glink.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,pmic-glink.yaml
>>>>> index 7085bf88afab..c57022109419 100644
>>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,pmic-glink.yaml
>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,pmic-glink.yaml
>>>>> @@ -37,12 +37,19 @@ properties:
>>>>>            - const: qcom,pmic-glink
>>>>>        - items:
>>>>>            - enum:
>>>>> +              - qcom,kaanapali-pmic-glink
>>>>>                - qcom,milos-pmic-glink
>>>>>                - qcom,sm8650-pmic-glink
>>>>>                - qcom,sm8750-pmic-glink
>>>>
>>>> Why qcom,kaanapali-pmic-glink is not compatible with
>>>> qcom,sm8750-pmic-glink? If Glymur is compatible with previous
>>>> generation, I would expect that here too.
>>>
>>> And again to re-iterate:
>>>
>>> If X1E is compatible with SM8550 AND:
>>> SM8750 is compatible with SM8550 THEN
>>> WHY Glymur is compatible with previous generation but Kaanapali is not
>>> compatible with previous generation?
>>
>> The announcement date does not directly correlate to 'generation'
> I don't know exactly this IP block/component, but in general these SoCs
> follow some sort of previous design, thus term "generation" is correct
> in many cases. Anyway don't be picky about wording.
> 
> You can remove the generation and statement will be the same.
> 
> If A is compatible with B AND
> C is compatible with B
> THEN
> 
> WHY D is compatible with (A and B) but E is not
> compatible with (C and B)?
> 
> Easier for you?
> 
> Why nitpicking on wording "generation" instead of explaining the
> problems or issues with bindings...

What I'm saying is that Kaanapali and Glymur are disjoint projects
that shouldn't be thought of as having a common base

Konrad