Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] arm64: dts: qcom: sdm845-oneplus: use generic fuel gauge compatible

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>]

On Thu, Sep 10, 2026 at 02:47:44AM +0300, Rinat Muhamedgaliev wrote:
> OnePlus 6 and OnePlus 6T battery packs may contain either a TI
> bq27411 or bq27541 fuel gauge. Use the generic ti,bq27xxx compatible
> so the driver can select the register map from DeviceType at probe
> time.
> 
> Tested on OnePlus 6T (fajita) with a bq27541 (DeviceType 0x0541):
> after booting the new kernel, the battery reported 4.360 V, 100% state
> of charge, 27.8 C, and Full status.
> 
> Fixes: 12dfb002ca01 ("arm64: dts: qcom: sdm845-oneplus-*: add fuel gauge")

What is the bug here? Your commit msg should be specific about it.

> 
> Signed-off-by: Rinat Muhamedgaliev <rinat.muhamedgaliev@gmail.com>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-oneplus-common.dtsi   | 4 ++--
>  arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-oneplus-enchilada.dts | 2 +-
>  arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-oneplus-fajita.dts    | 2 +-
>  3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-oneplus-common.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-oneplus-common.dtsi
> index 948a0dd..8c5cd94 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-oneplus-common.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-oneplus-common.dtsi
> @@ -790,8 +790,8 @@ &i2c10 {
>  	status = "okay";
>  	clock-frequency = <100000>;
>  
> -	bq27441_fg: bq27441-battery@55 {
> -		compatible = "ti,bq27411";
> +	bq27xxx_fg: fuel-gauge@55 {
> +		compatible = "ti,bq27xxx";

And this is just breaking all users without any explanation.



>  		status = "okay";
>  		reg = <0x55>;
>  	};
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-oneplus-enchilada.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-oneplus-enchilada.dts
> index 5f01115..cf40842 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-oneplus-enchilada.dts
> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-oneplus-enchilada.dts
> @@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ main_cam_ois: main-cam-ois-regulator {
>  	};
>  };
>  
> -&bq27441_fg {
> +&bq27xxx_fg {

No, irrelevant to the supposed bug here.

Best regards,
Krzysztof