Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: power: supply: Document Maxim MAX8971 charger

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>]

On 03/03/2025 09:13, Svyatoslav Ryhel wrote:
> пн, 3 бер. 2025 р. о 09:52 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> пише:
>>
>> On 27/02/2025 12:03, Svyatoslav Ryhel wrote:
>>> чт, 27 лют. 2025 р. о 12:45 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> пише:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 11:36:59AM +0200, Svyatoslav Ryhel wrote:
>>>>> +  maxim,fcharge-current-limit-microamp:
>>>>> +    description:
>>>>> +      Fast-Charge current limit
>>>>> +    minimum: 250000
>>>>> +    default: 500000
>>>>> +    maximum: 1550000
>>>>> +
>>>>> +  maxim,fcharge-timer-hours:
>>>>> +    description:
>>>>> +      Fast-Charge timer in hours. Setting this value 3 and lower or 11 and higher
>>>>> +      will disable Fast-Charge timer.
>>>>> +    $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32
>>>>> +    default: 5
>>>>
>>>> You still did not answer why this is board specific. This was rejected
>>>> in the past because of that reason and nothing here changed. Nothing

Where are the arguments to existing/previous decisions?

>>>> will change without detailed explanation, so use other interfaces if you

Again, where is detailed explanation why time is determined per board,
unlike previously agreed that it is not?

>>>> need user-space to configure it (see other drivers, e.g. maxim)




>>>>
>>>
>>> Btw, I have used this awesome example you have provided. Take a look
>>
>> Where did I provide this example?
>>
> 
> Its presence in the docs is an example on its no? You have explicitly
> told to check other maxim devices, I did so, they all have similar set
> of convifurations.

Choose rather later or latest, not 12 YO, binding as an example.

> 
>>>
>>> https://web.git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/supply/maxim,max77693.yaml?h=v6.14-rc4
>>
>> I opened it and I do not see anything about time. Please point to
>> specific line.
>>
>> But regardless, how did I propose to use 12 year old binding? Where did
>> I suggest that one?
>>
>>>
>>> Oh, I wonder why it uses so much values which duplicate battery? I
>>> know, it lacks battery, I assume that is why?
>>
>> No. You added to DT something which is not a hardware property, but
>> user-space choice or policy.
>>
> 
> It is NOT a user-space choice or policy!
Previous discussions on the lists - since you mention 12 year old
binding, so also discussions 12 years ago - determined that they are
closer to them than board configuration.

I already said - this was rejected in the past - so now I am repeating
myself.

You did not bring any arguments just keep repeating "no", so I suggest
reading previous discussions and coming with arguments against them.

Best regards,
Krzysztof