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

[Rakesh Kota]

On Mon, May 25, 2026 at 05:31:39PM +0530, Rakesh Kota wrote:
> 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?

Hi @Konrad Dybcio, @Krzysztof Kozlowski , 

Following up on the earlier discussion — is monitored-battery =
<&pmic_glink>; a valid pattern? And if so, would marking pmic_glink as
simple-battery cause DT schema validation failures?

Any guidance would be appreciated!

regards
Rakesh