On Monday 23 May 2016 17:55:49 Andrew F. Davis wrote:
> On 05/20/2016 04:29 AM, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Hi!
> > 
> >>>>>>> No, it is not driver name, but device name. That is
> >>>>>>> different.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> My bad, that's what I meant, device names should be dynamic,
> >>>>>> right? Relying on them being static in software would then be
> >>>>>> buggy (like relying on eth0 being the right NIC everytime)?
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> I'm not familiar with the N900 software, but IDR can give out
> >>>>>> different numbers and may not always give the first battery #0
> >>>>>> (it does now but is that a guarantee in IDR?) and if not then
> >>>>>> what is the userspace response to this changing?
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> In case N900 would have more bq27xxx batteries, then yes. But
> >>>>> N900 has exactly *one* bq27200 battery, so there is no IDR
> >>>>> problem.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Right, but if IDR returns 42 instead of 0 would this then break
> >>>> its userspace software?
> >>> 
> >>> I think it is insane to starts generating random numbers for
> >>> IDR... Hard to decide what happen if such situation occur...
> >> 
> >> That's kind of what I'm looking for though, if the userspace break
> >> is caused by software relying on the battery to be named
> >> "bq27200-0", then nothing short of hard-coding this exact name
> >> will 100% safely fix the N900 userspace software. And so using
> >> IDR and hoping it gives 0 is just a hacky work-around way of just
> >> naming the device "bq27200-0".
> > 
> > N900 userspace is not intended to be portable. (And actually
> > current kernel support does not allow writing portable userspace
> > for a phone. It presents _3_ power supplies to userspace. How is
> > userspace expected to deal with that?)
> > 
> > And if you ever name the single battery bq27200-42 or bq27200-1337,
> > you'll have a flock of angry penguins at your doorstep.
> 
> haha, wouldn't want that.
> 
> That's what I'm trying to prevent here. Right now n900 userspace
> looks for "bq27200-0" and *only* that, but the 0 does not
> necessarily mean it is the first battery, it doesn't mean anything,
> we could have it mean the first bq27x battery if we keep a count,
> right now we though we depend on IDR behavior, which does not make
> any order guarantee.
> 
> Really we are abusing IDR, which is meant to return a unique ID that
> we can use to fetch an associated pointer, but we don't do that, we
> are just using it as a number generator, and that number needs to be
> zero.
> 
> Looking at the code you posted it looks like "n900-battery" was
> renamed to "rx51-battery", I think this would be the correct fix
> here for the bq27x batteries, there is only one of each so just
> dropping the "-0" and looking for "bq27200" should fix all this.
> 
> Or we could always call the battery "bq27200-0" and not use IDR to
> generate the number zero for us :)
> 
> Thanks,
> Andrew

I think that IDR is used here to allow more bq27xxx batteries to be 
registered into power_supply subsystem. You cannot have two batteries 
with same name, as all are exported by sysfs...

Basically, if you store name into driver, device tree or IDR... I do not 
care, what I want is to have working code and working battery charging.

-- 
Pali Rohár
pali.rohar@gmail.com