Hi Jonathan,
On 10/12/2017 17:49, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 15:12:51 +0100
> Quentin Schulz <quentin.schulz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> The X-Powers AXP813 PMIC has got some slight differences from
>> AXP20X/AXP22X PMICs:
>> - the maximum voltage supplied by the PMIC is 4.35 instead of 4.36/4.24
>> for AXP20X/AXP22X,
>> - the constant charge current formula is different,
>>
>> It also has a bit to tell whether the battery percentage returned by the
>> PMIC is valid.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Quentin Schulz <quentin.schulz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> I'd use switch statements when matching the IDs as that'll be more elegant
> as you perhaps add further devices going forward...
>
> Other than that, looks good to me.
>
Well, I was wondering if it shouldn't be better to define a structure
for each device containing their quirks, functions, etc... like it is
done for the ADC or the ACIN power supply driver part.
struct axp20x_data {
bool has_valid_fg_reg;
void constant_charge_current_to_raw(struct axp20x_batt_ps *axp, int *val);
void raw_to_constant_charge_current(struct axp20x_batt_ps *axp, int *val);
int get_max_voltage(struct axp20x_batt_ps *axp, int *val);
[...]
};
static const struct of_device_id axp20x_battery_ps_id[] = {
{ .compatible = "x-powers,axp209-battery-power-supply", .data = (void
*)&axp209_data, }, {}
};
void probe()
{
[...]
axp20x_batt->info = of_device_get_match_data(&pdev->dev);
[...]
}
Sebastian, any objection on doing this?
Thanks,
Quentin
> Jonathan
>
>> ---
>> drivers/power/supply/axp20x_battery.c | 44 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>> 1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/power/supply/axp20x_battery.c b/drivers/power/supply/axp20x_battery.c
>> index 7494f0f..cb30302 100644
>> --- a/drivers/power/supply/axp20x_battery.c
>> +++ b/drivers/power/supply/axp20x_battery.c
>> @@ -46,6 +46,8 @@
>> #define AXP20X_CHRG_CTRL1_TGT_4_2V (2 << 5)
>> #define AXP20X_CHRG_CTRL1_TGT_4_36V (3 << 5)
>>
>> +#define AXP813_CHRG_CTRL1_TGT_4_35V (3 << 5)
>> +
>> #define AXP22X_CHRG_CTRL1_TGT_4_22V (1 << 5)
>> #define AXP22X_CHRG_CTRL1_TGT_4_24V (3 << 5)
>>
>> @@ -123,10 +125,41 @@ static int axp22x_battery_get_max_voltage(struct axp20x_batt_ps *axp20x_batt,
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> +static int axp813_battery_get_max_voltage(struct axp20x_batt_ps *axp20x_batt,
>> + int *val)
>> +{
>> + int ret, reg;
>> +
>> + ret = regmap_read(axp20x_batt->regmap, AXP20X_CHRG_CTRL1, ®);
>> + if (ret)
>> + return ret;
>> +
>> + switch (reg & AXP20X_CHRG_CTRL1_TGT_VOLT) {
>
> You could do a lookup based from a table instead which might
> be ever so slightly more elegant..
>
>> + case AXP20X_CHRG_CTRL1_TGT_4_1V:
>> + *val = 4100000;
>> + break;
>> + case AXP20X_CHRG_CTRL1_TGT_4_15V:
>> + *val = 4150000;
>> + break;
>> + case AXP20X_CHRG_CTRL1_TGT_4_2V:
>> + *val = 4200000;
>> + break;
>> + case AXP813_CHRG_CTRL1_TGT_4_35V:
>> + *val = 4350000;
>> + break;
>> + default:
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + }
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> static void raw_to_constant_charge_current(struct axp20x_batt_ps *axp, int *val)
>> {
>> if (axp->axp_id == AXP209_ID)
>> *val = *val * 100000 + 300000;
>> + else if (axp->axp_id == AXP813_ID)
>> + *val = *val * 200000 + 200000;
>> else
>> *val = *val * 150000 + 300000;
>
> Switch?
>
>> }
>> @@ -135,6 +168,8 @@ static void constant_charge_current_to_raw(struct axp20x_batt_ps *axp, int *val)
>> {
>> if (axp->axp_id == AXP209_ID)
>> *val = (*val - 300000) / 100000;
>> + else if (axp->axp_id == AXP813_ID)
>> + *val = (*val - 200000) / 200000;
>> else
>> *val = (*val - 300000) / 150000;
>> }
>> @@ -269,7 +304,8 @@ static int axp20x_battery_get_prop(struct power_supply *psy,
>> if (ret)
>> return ret;
>>
>> - if (axp20x_batt->axp_id == AXP221_ID &&
>> + if ((axp20x_batt->axp_id == AXP221_ID ||
>> + axp20x_batt->axp_id == AXP813_ID) &&
>> !(reg & AXP22X_FG_VALID))
>> return -EINVAL;
>>
>> @@ -284,6 +320,9 @@ static int axp20x_battery_get_prop(struct power_supply *psy,
>> if (axp20x_batt->axp_id == AXP209_ID)
>> return axp20x_battery_get_max_voltage(axp20x_batt,
>> &val->intval);
>> + else if (axp20x_batt->axp_id == AXP813_ID)
>> + return axp813_battery_get_max_voltage(axp20x_batt,
>> + &val->intval);
>> return axp22x_battery_get_max_voltage(axp20x_batt,
>> &val->intval);
>
> Worth converting to a switch statement to make it more elegant for future
> devices?
>
>>
>> @@ -467,6 +506,9 @@ static const struct of_device_id axp20x_battery_ps_id[] = {
>> }, {
>> .compatible = "x-powers,axp221-battery-power-supply",
>> .data = (void *)AXP221_ID,
>> + }, {
>> + .compatible = "x-powers,axp813-battery-power-supply",
>> + .data = (void *)AXP813_ID,
>> }, { /* sentinel */ },
>> };
>> MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, axp20x_battery_ps_id);
>
--
Quentin Schulz, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
