Re: [PATCH v4 3/6] Documentation: DT: Document twl4030-madc-battery bindings

[Tony Lindgren]

* Sebastian Reichel <sre@xxxxxxxxxx> [150311 12:37]:
> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 10:43:17AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > No no, "capacity-uah" is what we should use, but you need an ack from
> > the battery and device tree people that this is OK. Let's not add
> > "ti,capacity-uahâ as that can obviously be a generic property.
> 
> I'm okay with capacity-uah.

OK great.
 
> > > [...]
> > 
> > Oh if they are battery spicific, then ideally we'd have generic batery
> > voltage to capacity maps property rather than a custom ti specific
> > property.
> > 
> > To avoid extra hassles later on, maybe you could submit a generic
> > binding patch only documenting it to the battery people and the device
> > tree people? That will make it easier to maintain this driver in the
> > long run.
> 
> Actually the proper way would be to differentiate between the
> battery and the measurement chip / adc and that should be
> implemented in the long run. The kernel's power supply framework
> is not yet ready for it, though.
> 
> Example DT:
> 
> battery {
>     battery-specific-data;
> };
> 
> fuel-gauge {
>     measures = <&battery>;
> };
> 
> charger {
>     charges = <&battery>;
> };
> 
> Since infrastructure for generic bindings is missing, I think its
> best to have the vendor properties for now and map this to generic
> properties, once they have been specified.

OK, sounds good to me. I'm fine with the $subject patch as it is then:

Acked-by: Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx>

Tony
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/