Re: [PATCH v3 1/7] dt-bindings: embedded-controller: document ASUS Transformer EC

[Svyatoslav Ryhel]

17 лютого 2026 р. 13:05:09 GMT+02:00, Conor Dooley <conor@xxxxxxxxxx> пише:
>On Mon, Feb 16, 2026 at 09:14:40PM +0200, Svyatoslav Ryhel wrote:
>> пн, 16 лют. 2026 р. о 20:50 Conor Dooley <conor@xxxxxxxxxx> пише:
>> >
>> > On Mon, Feb 16, 2026 at 08:22:38PM +0200, Svyatoslav Ryhel wrote:
>> > > пн, 16 лют. 2026 р. о 20:04 Conor Dooley <conor@xxxxxxxxxx> пише:
>> > > >
>> > > > On Sat, Feb 14, 2026 at 08:09:53PM +0200, Svyatoslav Ryhel wrote:
>> > > > > Document embedded controller used in ASUS Transformer device series.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Signed-off-by: Svyatoslav Ryhel <clamor95@xxxxxxxxx>
>> > > > > ---
>> > > > >  .../asus,transformer-ec.yaml                  | 98 +++++++++++++++++++
>> > > > >  1 file changed, 98 insertions(+)
>> > > > >  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/embedded-controller/asus,transformer-ec.yaml
>> > > > >
>> > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/embedded-controller/asus,transformer-ec.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/embedded-controller/asus,transformer-ec.yaml
>> > > > > new file mode 100644
>> > > > > index 000000000000..670c4c2d339d
>> > > > > --- /dev/null
>> > > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/embedded-controller/asus,transformer-ec.yaml
>> > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,98 @@
>> > > > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause)
>> > > > > +%YAML 1.2
>> > > > > +---
>> > > > > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/embedded-controller/asus,transformer-ec.yaml#
>> > > > > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
>> > > > > +
>> > > > > +title: ASUS Transformer's Embedded Controller
>> > > > > +
>> > > > > +description:
>> > > > > +  Several Nuvoton based Embedded Controllers attached to an I2C bus,
>> > > > > +  running a custom ASUS firmware, specific to the ASUS Transformer
>> > > > > +  device series.
>> > > > > +
>> > > > > +maintainers:
>> > > > > +  - Svyatoslav Ryhel <clamor95@xxxxxxxxx>
>> > > > > +
>> > > > > +allOf:
>> > > > > +  - $ref: /schemas/power/supply/power-supply.yaml
>> > > > > +
>> > > > > +properties:
>> > > > > +  compatible:
>> > > > > +    oneOf:
>> > > > > +      - enum:
>> > > > > +          - asus,p1801-t-ec-pad
>> > > > > +          - asus,sl101-ec-dock
>> > > > > +          - asus,tf600t-ec-pad
>> > > > > +          - asus,tf701t-ec-pad
>> > > > > +
>> > > > > +      - items:
>> > > > > +          - enum:
>> > > > > +              - asus,tf101-ec-dock
>> > > > > +              - asus,tf101g-ec-dock
>> > > > > +              - asus,tf201-ec-dock
>> > > > > +              - asus,tf300t-ec-dock
>> > > > > +              - asus,tf300tg-ec-dock
>> > > > > +              - asus,tf300tl-ec-dock
>> > > > > +              - asus,tf700t-ec-dock
>> > > > > +          - const: asus,transformer-ec-dock
>> > > > > +
>> > > > > +      - items:
>> > > > > +          - enum:
>> > > > > +              - asus,tf201-ec-pad
>> > > > > +              - asus,tf300t-ec-pad
>> > > > > +              - asus,tf300tg-ec-pad
>> > > > > +              - asus,tf300tl-ec-pad
>> > > > > +              - asus,tf700t-ec-pad
>> > > > > +          - const: asus,transformer-ec-pad
>
>> > > > Also, why are some of the compatibles permitted standalone? That should
>> > > > be mentioned in your commit message too. Also, other than the sl101, the
>> > > > standalone ones seem to have the same match data in the mfd driver. Why
>> > > > are fallbacks not made use of there?
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > Because standalone compatibles describe a unique hw configuration
>> > > which cannot be grouped into something meaningful. asus,p1801-t-ec-pad
>> > > is for EC of Tegra30/Intel based p1801-t AIO, asus,sl101-ec-dock is
>> > > for EC of Tegra20 slider tablet, asus,tf600t-ec-pad is for altered EC
>> > > in Win8 Tegra30 tablet, asus,tf701t-ec-pad is for Tegra114 tablet.
>> > > Different generations, different form-factors.
>> >
>> > I don't see any reasons here that eliminate fallback compatibles.
>> > +       { .compatible = "asus,p1801-t-ec-pad", .data = &asus_ec_pad_charger_data },
>> > +       { .compatible = "asus,tf600t-ec-pad", .data = &asus_ec_pad_charger_data },
>> > +       { .compatible = "asus,tf701t-ec-pad", .data = &asus_ec_pad_charger_data },
>> > +       { }
>> > Three of them use the same match data, so you need to explain why you've
>> > made these three standalone when all the others that share a programming
>> > model got a generic fallback. Fallback usage is based on programming
>> > model, not based on whether the devices are a physically different, so
>> > your explanation must reflect this.
>> >
>> > > > Since this transformer series seems to have multiple programming models
>> > > > for "ec-pad" devices, it calls into question your use of the generic
>> > > > fallback compatibles is appropriate and makes it seem like you should be
>> > > > using device compatibles as a fallback.
>> > >
>> > > That is redundant.
>> >
>> > I don't understand how that is a response to what I said.
>> >
>> 
>> in other words you propose this:
>> 
>> properties:
>>   compatible:
>>     oneOf:
>>       - items:
>>           - enum:
>>               - asus,sl101-ec-dock
>>               - asus,tf101-ec-dock
>>               - asus,tf101g-ec-dock
>>               - asus,tf201-ec-dock
>>               - asus,tf300t-ec-dock
>>               - asus,tf300tg-ec-dock
>>               - asus,tf300tl-ec-dock
>>               - asus,tf700t-ec-dock
>>           - const: asus,transformer-ec-dock
>> 
>>       - items:
>>           - enum:
>>               - asus,p1801-t-ec-pad
>>               - asus,tf201-ec-pad
>>               - asus,tf300t-ec-pad
>>               - asus,tf300tg-ec-pad
>>               - asus,tf300tl-ec-pad
>>               - asus,tf700t-ec-pad
>>               - asus,tf600t-ec-pad
>>               - asus,tf701t-ec-pad
>>           - const: asus,transformer-ec-pad
>> 
>> And in the driver add match to every single entry of enums?
>
>No, I was talking about removing the generic compatibles entirely, since
>they are not suitably generic to cover all devices at the point of
>addition. So like:
>

Actually, they all can be grouped under asus,transformer-ec fallback if that is needed, both pad and dock EC have the same core functions just different set of cells. And then in the driver each compatible will get a dedicated matching data. Will this work?

properties:
  compatible:
      - items:
          - enum:
              - asus,p1801-t-ec-pad
              - asus,sl101-ec-dock
              - asus,tf101-ec-dock
              - asus,tf101g-ec-dock
              - asus,tf201-ec-dock
              - asus,tf201-ec-pad
              - asus,tf300t-ec-dock
              - asus,tf300t-ec-pad
              - asus,tf300tg-ec-dock
              - asus,tf300tg-ec-pad
              - asus,tf300tl-ec-dock
              - asus,tf300tl-ec-pad
              - asus,tf700t-ec-dock
              - asus,tf700t-ec-pad
              - asus,tf600t-ec-pad
              - asus,tf701t-ec-pad
          - const: asus,transformer-ec

And them schema name will match the genetic compatible.

>items:
>  - enum:
>      - asus,tf101-ec-dock
>      - asus,tf101g-ec-dock
>      - asus,tf201-ec-dock
>      - asus,tf300t-ec-dock
>      - asus,tf300tg-ec-dock
>      - asus,tf300tl-ec-dock
>  - const: asus,tf700t-ec-dock
>
>and
>
>items:
>  - enum:
>      - asus,p1801-t-ec-pad
>      - asus,tf600t-ec-pad
>  - const: asus,tf701t-ec-pad
>
>I dunno about these particular devices, but if there's already two
>programming models for these devices, what's to stop there being more
>added if/when a new generation of produces arrives?

There will be no new devices with this EC, last one was around 2013.