Re: [PATCH v4 3/6] Documentation: DT: Document twl4030-madc-battery bindings

From: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>
To: Sebastian Reichel <sre@kernel.org>
Cc: "Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller" <hns@goldelico.com>,
	Marek Belisko <marek@goldelico.com>,
	Benoit Cousson <bcousson@baylibre.com>,
	Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov <dbaryshkov@gmail.com>,
	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>, Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@arm.com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@codeaurora.org>,
	devicetree@vger.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-omap@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/6] Documentation: DT: Document twl4030-madc-battery bindings
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 12:37:36 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150311193736.GF5264@atomide.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150311193654.GA3126@earth>

* Sebastian Reichel <sre@kernel.org> [150311 12:37]:
> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 10:43:17AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > No no, "capacity-uah" is what we should use, but you need an ack from
> > the battery and device tree people that this is OK. Let's not add
> > "ti,capacity-uah” as that can obviously be a generic property.
> 
> I'm okay with capacity-uah.

OK great.

> > > [...]
> > 
> > Oh if they are battery spicific, then ideally we'd have generic batery
> > voltage to capacity maps property rather than a custom ti specific
> > property.
> > 
> > To avoid extra hassles later on, maybe you could submit a generic
> > binding patch only documenting it to the battery people and the device
> > tree people? That will make it easier to maintain this driver in the
> > long run.
> 
> Actually the proper way would be to differentiate between the
> battery and the measurement chip / adc and that should be
> implemented in the long run. The kernel's power supply framework
> is not yet ready for it, though.
> 
> Example DT:
> 
> battery {
>     battery-specific-data;
> };
> 
> fuel-gauge {
>     measures = <&battery>;
> };
> 
> charger {
>     charges = <&battery>;
> };
> 
> Since infrastructure for generic bindings is missing, I think its
> best to have the vendor properties for now and map this to generic
> properties, once they have been specified.

OK, sounds good to me. I'm fine with the $subject patch as it is then:

Acked-by: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>

Tony