From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Craig Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 3/4] dt-bindings: power: supply: qcom_bms: Add bindings Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 20:13:52 +0100 Message-ID: <5039A15E-E604-4D03-AFEF-4B139EB18A30@gmail.com> References: <20180407135934.26122-1-ctatlor97@gmail.com> <20180614151435.6471-1-ctatlor97@gmail.com> <20180614151435.6471-3-ctatlor97@gmail.com> <20180916121045.aptj6nciwskfg4st@earth.universe> <4BBA3F28-A769-4F09-86DC-1E3906C53B26@gmail.com> <20180920165847.6xqzeoqzqkyotshx@earth.universe> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20180920165847.6xqzeoqzqkyotshx@earth.universe> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Sebastian Reichel , Baolin Wang , Rob Herring Cc: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, Mark Rutland , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 20 September 2018 17:58:47 BST, Sebastian Reichel wrote: >[Dropped a couple of people from CC, added Baolin] > >Hi Craig, Baolin and Rob, > >On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 03:32:29PM +0100, Craig wrote: >> On 16 September 2018 13:10:45 BST, Sebastian Reichel > wrote: >> >Sorry for my long delay in reviewing this=2E I like the binding, >> >but the "qcom," specific properties should become common properties >> >in >> > >> >Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/supply/battery=2Etxt >> >and referenced via monitored-battery=2E > >> Thanks for the review, what bindings for ocv would you prefer? The >> spreadtrum ones or mine? > >Most importantly I want to see only one generic binding supporting >both use cases=2E As far as I can see there are two major differences: > >1=2E Qcom uses legend properties and SC27XX embedds this into data >2=2E Qcom supports temperature based mapping > >The second point is easy: Not having temperature information can >be a subset of the data with temperature info=2E The main thing to >discuss are the legend properties=2E I suppose we have these >proposals: > >Proposal A (from Qcom BMS binding): > >ocv-capacity-legend =3D /bits/ 8 <100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 >=2E=2E=2E>; >ocv-temp-legend-celsius =3D /bits/ 8 <(-10) 0 25 50 65>; >ocv-lut-microvolt =3D <43050000 43050000 43030000 42990000 > >Proposal B (from SC27XX binding): > >ocv-cap-table =3D <4185 100>, <4113 95>, <4066 90>, <4022 85> =2E=2E=2E; > >I prefer the second binding (with mV -> uV), but I think it becomes >messy when temperature is added=2E What do you think about the >following proposal (derived from pinctrl style): > >Proposal C: > >ocv-capacity-table-temperatures =3D <(-10) 0 10>; >ocv-capacity-table-0 =3D <4185000 100>, <4113000 95>, <4066000 90>, =2E= =2E=2E; >ocv-capacity-table-1 =3D <4200000 100>, <4185000 95>, <4113000 90>, =2E= =2E=2E; >ocv-capacity-table-2 =3D <4250000 100>, <4200000 95>, <4185000 90>, =2E= =2E=2E; > >-- Sebastian C looks good to me however I do kinda think it should be millivolts as I d= on't think any hardware reads in microvolts and the zeroes make it look qui= te ugly