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

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 02/07/2026 13:30, 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?

No, pmic is not the monitored batter. Node representing real batter
would be, but the main point remains - your firmware abstracts it, so
fix the firmware to provide proper abstraction.

Best regards,
Krzysztof