Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: soc: qcom: pmic-glink: Document batteryless property

[Rakesh Kota]

On Fri, May 22, 2026 at 11:24:19AM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> On 5/21/26 11:58 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > On 21/05/2026 10:46, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> >> On 5/21/26 9:20 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >>>> Since firmware does not have a way to dynamically tell if it on a
> >>>> debug-board powered device or a DCIN powered device, We are required to
> >>>> add this new DT property.
> >>>
> >>> Neither debug-board powered device nor battery-less will have
> >>> monitored-battery, thus again, why lack of that property cannot tell you
> >>> what you need?
> >>
> >> A device with a battery will not have a monitored-battery either
> > But why? If for such device property "no battery" is suitable, then for
> > me "monitored-battery" is suitable as well. IOW, if you say that having
> > a property describing batter is not a accurate hardware property here,
> > then neither saying "no battery" is, because no batter is basically some
> > sort of battery (just like empty set is still a set, empty array is
> > still an array).
> 
> The battmgr service running on one of the remoteprocs already has all
> the information about the battery and it also handles all the type-c,
> PD and charger configuration, only letting the OS know about the
> results.
> 
> Hence, unless there's some other hardware at play (e.g. for custom
> 200 W charging), which wasn't fully implemented in the QC firmware,
> there is no reason to describe a battery separately, since the OS
> can't do anything useful with that information
> 
> In some abstract way, perhaps monitored_battery = <&pmic_glink> could
> be thought of as valid (since that's the data source the OS gets to
> see)

Should we use monitored-battery = <&pmic_glink>; If so, would it be
incorrect to mark pmic_glink as simple-battery, as that may cause the
schema validation to fail?

regards
Rakesh