Hi dee Ho again,
On 11/18/21 08:11, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
Hi Linus,
On 11/18/21 04:10, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 1:26 PM Matti Vaittinen
<matti.vaittinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Support obtaining the "capacity degradation by temperature" - tables
from device-tree to batinfo.
Signed-off-by: Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Same questions as on the binding patch.
If we already support different degradation by temperature tables,
why do we need a second mechanism for the same thing?
Thanks for bringing this up. As I said, I didn't notice that we could
indeed use the CAP-OCV tables for different temperatures to bring in
this information :) I see certain benefit from the possibility of not
requiring to measure the OCV at different temperatures - but it may not
be meaningful. As I replied to your patch 1/9 review - I need to (try
to) do some more research...
I don't see providing OCV tables at different temperature gives the
degradation of battery capacity. Whoah. A big thought for Friday.
We get the OCV => SOC correspondance at different temperatures. I
however don't see how this gives the OCV => energy relation.
know both the OCV and the 'amount of uAhs battery is able to store' are
impacted by temperature change. This means, seeing the OCV => SOC at
different temperatures does not tell us what is the impact of
temperature to the OCV, and what is the impact to SOC.