* Sebastian Reichel <sre@xxxxxxxxxx> [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@xxxxxxxxxxx> Tony -- 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