From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Krzysztof Kozlowski Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/13] power: max17042_battery: Add support for the TECHNOLOGY attribute Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 18:26:32 +0200 Message-ID: <20170414162632.7r3id7lkzbcjp3wj@kozik-lap> References: <20170414125919.25771-1-hdegoede@redhat.com> <20170414125919.25771-8-hdegoede@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f65.google.com ([74.125.82.65]:35013 "EHLO mail-wm0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751371AbdDNQ0h (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Apr 2017 12:26:37 -0400 Received: by mail-wm0-f65.google.com with SMTP id d79so18557237wmi.2 for ; Fri, 14 Apr 2017 09:26:36 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170414125919.25771-8-hdegoede@redhat.com> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: Hans de Goede Cc: Sebastian Reichel , Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 02:59:14PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > The max17042 is intended for LiOn or LiPo batteries, add a TECHNOLOGY > attribute to reflect this. Note this is hardcoded to LiOn as there is > no way to tell the difference, this is done by many drivers and is > better then not providing any technology info at all. Same as Wolfgang's try: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9349945/ but with better explanation. :) Yet still I am not convinced that providing a wrong information (Li-Ion in case of LiPo battery) is better than not providing any info at all. Best regards, Krzysztof