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

[Dmitry Baryshkov]

On Thu, Jul 02, 2026 at 05:00:10PM +0530, Rakesh Kota wrote:
> 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?

I'd say, no, monitored-battery should be pointing to the battery device.
Please fix this on the firmware side, so that the firmware can report
having no battery at all.

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry