On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 08:13:52PM +0100, Craig wrote: > On 20 September 2018 17:58:47 BST, Sebastian Reichel <sebastian.reichel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >[Dropped a couple of people from CC, added Baolin] > > > >Hi Craig, Baolin and Rob, > > > >On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 03:32:29PM +0100, Craig wrote: > >> On 16 September 2018 13:10:45 BST, Sebastian Reichel > ><sebastian.reichel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >Sorry for my long delay in reviewing this. I like the binding, > >> >but the "qcom," specific properties should become common properties > >> >in > >> > > >> >Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/supply/battery.txt > >> >and referenced via monitored-battery. > > > >> Thanks for the review, what bindings for ocv would you prefer? The > >> spreadtrum ones or mine? > > > >Most importantly I want to see only one generic binding supporting > >both use cases. As far as I can see there are two major differences: > > > >1. Qcom uses legend properties and SC27XX embedds this into data > >2. Qcom supports temperature based mapping > > > >The second point is easy: Not having temperature information can > >be a subset of the data with temperature info. The main thing to > >discuss are the legend properties. I suppose we have these > >proposals: > > > >Proposal A (from Qcom BMS binding): > > > >ocv-capacity-legend = /bits/ 8 <100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 > >...>; > >ocv-temp-legend-celsius = /bits/ 8 <(-10) 0 25 50 65>; > >ocv-lut-microvolt = <43050000 43050000 43030000 42990000 > > > >Proposal B (from SC27XX binding): > > > >ocv-cap-table = <4185 100>, <4113 95>, <4066 90>, <4022 85> ...; > > > >I prefer the second binding (with mV -> uV), but I think it becomes > >messy when temperature is added. What do you think about the > >following proposal (derived from pinctrl style): > > > >Proposal C: > > > >ocv-capacity-table-temperatures = <(-10) 0 10>; > >ocv-capacity-table-0 = <4185000 100>, <4113000 95>, <4066000 90>, ...; > >ocv-capacity-table-1 = <4200000 100>, <4185000 95>, <4113000 90>, ...; > >ocv-capacity-table-2 = <4250000 100>, <4200000 95>, <4185000 90>, ...; > > > >-- Sebastian > > C looks good to me however I do kinda think it should be > millivolts as I don't think any hardware reads in microvolts and > the zeroes make it look quite ugly I agree, that it looks a bit ugly in the table. Nevertheless I think we should use microvolts, since that is being used by all other properties. -- Sebastian
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
