Re: [PATCH] power: bq27xxx_battery: Unique chip IDs

["Andrew F. Davis" <afd@ti.com>]

On 03/08/2017 11:45 AM, Liam Breck wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 9:23 AM, Andrew F. Davis <afd@ti.com> wrote:
>> On 03/07/2017 05:05 PM, Liam Breck wrote:
>>> From: Liam Breck <kernel@networkimprov.net>
>>>
>>> Assign every chip a unique ID, to enable
>>> power_supply_battery_info config for all supported chips.
>>> There are no functional changes to the driver.
>>>
>>> Depends-on: power: bq27xxx_battery: Add power_supply_battery_info support
>>> Signed-off-by: Liam Breck <kernel@networkimprov.net>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Andrew, let me know if you'd like me to include this in the other patchset.
>>
>> Why do we need this at all? It may be just bit too early for me, but I'm
>> not seeing what this gets us, that couldn't be done before.
> 
> Sadly, the chips mostly have different dm_reg tables, so we need the
> real chip ID to give each a table.
> 
> My last rev only supported IDs associated with a single chip: 500,
> 545, 421. In the 421 case, we had to split off that ID.
> 

Okay, then if we need a new ID lets add it. Going back to having a table
of pointers is a step back, we used to do it this way, but every-time a
new chip appeared or we found a delta in an existing chip(s) (like you
are finding now) we would have to re-organize the pointer table and
other associated tables, it is much cleaner and easier to review (more
important than code size by orders of magnitude IMHO) to just add a new
entry into the big master table of registers.

> 
>>>  drivers/power/supply/bq27xxx_battery.c     | 94 +++++++++++++++++-------------
>>>  drivers/power/supply/bq27xxx_battery_i2c.c | 14 ++---
>>>  include/linux/power/bq27xxx_battery.h      | 15 +++--
>>>  3 files changed, 71 insertions(+), 52 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/power/supply/bq27xxx_battery.c b/drivers/power/supply/bq27xxx_battery.c
>>> index ed976a1..30af0e4 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/power/supply/bq27xxx_battery.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/power/supply/bq27xxx_battery.c
> 
>>> +static u8* bq27xxx_regs[] = {
>>> +     [BQ27000] = bq27000_regs, /* really bq27200 */
>>> +     [BQ27010] = bq27010_regs, /* really bq27210 */
>>
>> Not strictly true, the bq270x0 and bq272x0 are different chips, one has
>> an HDQ bus and the other I2C, later chips have both ports on each chip.
> 
> Oh, I saw only the 200 & 210 in _i2c.c, and forgot that the driver
> supports another interface. I'll remove those comments.
> 
> I won't separate these IDs as none of them support DM update.
> 
> Think you could do some testing soon?
> 

Yeah, I could probably fit some testing into my schedule, I'll see what
v9 looks like before I unpack the boards.