* Re: [PATCH 1/1] power: supply: cpcap-battery: improve handling of 3rd party and XT875 batteries.
[not found] <20201020225312.b4ea29c9dc3ae00f23e39280@uvos.xyz>
@ 2020-10-20 21:41 ` Sebastian Reichel
2020-10-21 4:51 ` Tony Lindgren
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Sebastian Reichel @ 2020-10-20 21:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dev Null; +Cc: linux-omap, linux-pm, Tony Lindgren
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4872 bytes --]
Hi,
Please do one change per patch:
On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 10:53:12PM +0200, Dev Null wrote:
> Adds a module option to ignore a missing temerature sensor.
first patch
> Invalidates empty->counter_uah and charge_full when charge_now indicates that they are grossly wrong
second patch
> Makes charge_full_design writeable, so that different/custom batteries can be used.
third patch
> This is especially usfull on XTT875 where both HW4X and BW8X exsist.
missing Signed-off-by.
> diff --git a/drivers/power/supply/cpcap-battery.c b/drivers/power/supply/cpcap-battery.c
> index 3be76cd7584a..ffa70c31c1cb 100644
> --- a/drivers/power/supply/cpcap-battery.c
> +++ b/drivers/power/supply/cpcap-battery.c
> @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@
> #include <linux/power_supply.h>
> #include <linux/reboot.h>
> #include <linux/regmap.h>
> +#include <linux/moduleparam.h>
>
> #include <linux/iio/consumer.h>
> #include <linux/iio/types.h>
> @@ -162,6 +163,9 @@ static const struct cpcap_battery_capacity cpcap_battery_cap[] = {
>
> #define CPCAP_NO_BATTERY -400
>
> +static bool ignore_temperature_probe;
> +module_param(ignore_temperature_probe, bool, 0660);
Can this be deferred from DT (i.e. always disable temperature probe
on XT875)? Having to specify a module parameter to get a working
system is not very user friendly.
> static struct cpcap_battery_state_data *
> cpcap_battery_get_state(struct cpcap_battery_ddata *ddata,
> enum cpcap_battery_state state)
> @@ -205,7 +209,8 @@ static int cpcap_charger_battery_temperature(struct cpcap_battery_ddata *ddata,
> channel = ddata->channels[CPCAP_BATTERY_IIO_BATTDET];
> error = iio_read_channel_processed(channel, value);
> if (error < 0) {
> - dev_warn(ddata->dev, "%s failed: %i\n", __func__, error);
> + if (!ignore_temperature_probe)
> + dev_warn(ddata->dev, "%s failed: %i\n", __func__, error);
> *value = CPCAP_NO_BATTERY;
>
> return error;
> @@ -558,7 +563,7 @@ static int cpcap_battery_get_property(struct power_supply *psy,
>
> switch (psp) {
> case POWER_SUPPLY_PROP_PRESENT:
> - if (latest->temperature > CPCAP_NO_BATTERY)
> + if (latest->temperature > CPCAP_NO_BATTERY || ignore_temperature_probe)
> val->intval = 1;
> else
> val->intval = 0;
> @@ -641,10 +646,22 @@ static int cpcap_battery_get_property(struct power_supply *psy,
> if (!empty->voltage)
> return -ENODATA;
> val->intval = empty->counter_uah - latest->counter_uah;
> - if (val->intval < 0)
> + if (val->intval < 0) {
> + if (ddata->charge_full && abs(val->intval) > ddata->charge_full/5) {
> + empty->voltage = 0;
> + ddata->charge_full = 0;
> + return -ENODATA;
> + }
> val->intval = 0;
> - else if (ddata->charge_full && ddata->charge_full < val->intval)
> + }
> + else if (ddata->charge_full && ddata->charge_full < val->intval) {
> + if (val->intval > (6*ddata->charge_full)/5) {
> + empty->voltage = 0;
> + ddata->charge_full = 0;
> + return -ENODATA;
> + }
> val->intval = ddata->charge_full;
> + }
The context of this patch is not available in cpcap-battery driver
from mainline. So this has dependencies on other patches, which
need to be submitted first. I currently do not have any pending
cpcap patches, but IIRC there was a big patchset which had to be
resubmitted.
> break;
> case POWER_SUPPLY_PROP_CHARGE_FULL:
> if (!ddata->charge_full)
> @@ -658,6 +675,8 @@ static int cpcap_battery_get_property(struct power_supply *psy,
> val->intval = POWER_SUPPLY_SCOPE_SYSTEM;
> break;
> case POWER_SUPPLY_PROP_TEMP:
> + if (ignore_temperature_probe)
> + return -ENODATA;
> val->intval = latest->temperature;
> break;
> default:
> @@ -715,11 +734,18 @@ static int cpcap_battery_set_property(struct power_supply *psy,
> case POWER_SUPPLY_PROP_CHARGE_FULL:
> if (val->intval < 0)
> return -EINVAL;
> - if (val->intval > ddata->config.info.charge_full_design)
> + if (val->intval > (6*ddata->config.info.charge_full_design)/5)
This deserves a comment. Why do we allow to set charge full to be
above full design capacity?
> return -EINVAL;
>
> ddata->charge_full = val->intval;
>
> + return 0;
> + case POWER_SUPPLY_PROP_CHARGE_FULL_DESIGN:
> + if (val->intval < 0)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + ddata->config.info.charge_full_design = val->intval;
> +
> return 0;
> default:
> return -EINVAL;
> @@ -734,6 +760,7 @@ static int cpcap_battery_property_is_writeable(struct power_supply *psy,
> switch (psp) {
> case POWER_SUPPLY_PROP_CONSTANT_CHARGE_VOLTAGE:
> case POWER_SUPPLY_PROP_CHARGE_FULL:
> + case POWER_SUPPLY_PROP_CHARGE_FULL_DESIGN:
> return 1;
> default:
> return 0;
>
> --
> Dev Null <devnull@uvos.xyz>
-- Sebastian
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread