From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andreas Dannenberg Subject: [RFC] TI BQ242xx Battery Charger Development/Consolidation Plans Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 11:05:21 -0500 Message-ID: <55C23441.2030305@ti.com> References: <1438706177-8115-1-git-send-email-dannenberg@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from comal.ext.ti.com ([198.47.26.152]:49162 "EHLO comal.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752668AbbHEQFx (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Aug 2015 12:05:53 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1438706177-8115-1-git-send-email-dannenberg@ti.com> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: Sebastian Reichel , Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov , David Woodhouse , =?windows-1252?Q?Pali_Roh=E1r?= , Laurentiu Palcu Cc: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Not too long I ago started working on a new driver called bq242xx_charger.c that will add support for TI's BQ24250, BQ24251, BQ24261M, and BQ24262 Li-Ion battery charger/power-path management ICs and that work is about 50% done. I chose a working name of bq242xx_charger.c in the hopes that in addition to providing immediate support for said devices that this driver can later be used as a platform to add other devices of the BQ242xx sub-family in an effort to re-use/consolidate and help keep drivers/power organized. Long story short I also realized that we just got a new bq24257_charger.c driver (for the BQ24257) already in the Linux 4.2 tree which creates somewhat of a conflict with the bq242xx_charger.c work in progress. I would like to solicit ideas/comments regarding the following plan of attack: - Continue bq242xx_charger.c development as scoped in the first paragraph - Work on getting it accepted into upstream - As future work, absorb the already existing bq24257_charger.c driver into the bq242xx_charger.c driver, and deprecate its usage There might be a potential risk for user confusion for a transitional time if somebody was just looking at the filenames to select their driver due to part number overlap. However I argue folks are more likely to go the Kconfig route to select their driver so this may not be a problem after all. Thanks! -- Andreas Dannenberg Texas Instruments Inc.