On Fri, 27 Mar 2015, Beomho Seo wrote: > On 03/27/2015 04:57 PM, Lee Jones wrote: > > On Fri, 27 Mar 2015, Beomho Seo wrote: > >> On 03/26/2015 10:54 PM, Lee Jones wrote: > >>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2015, Beomho Seo wrote: > >>>> On 03/24/2015 05:38 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >>>>> 2015-03-24 9:01 GMT+01:00 Beomho Seo <beomho.seo@xxxxxxxxxxx>: > >>>>>> On 03/10/2015 10:44 PM, Beomho Seo wrote: > >>>>>>> On 03/09/2015 09:13 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >>>>>>>> On pon, 2015-03-09 at 20:46 +0900, Beomho Seo wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On 03/09/2015 08:02 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> 2015-03-09 1:35 GMT+01:00 Beomho Seo <beomho.seo@xxxxxxxxxxx>: > >>>>>>>>>>> On 03/08/2015 05:13 AM, Sebastian Reichel wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 07:10:35PM +0900, Jaewon Kim wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Beomho Seo <beomho.seo@xxxxxxxxxxx> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> This patch adds device driver of max77843 charger. This driver provide > >>>>>>>>>>>>> initialize each charging mode(e.g. fast charge, top-off mode and constant > >>>>>>>>>>>>> charging mode so on.). Additionally, control charging paramters to use > >>>>>>>>>>>>> i2c interface. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Sebastian Reichel <sre@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Beomho Seo <beomho.seo@xxxxxxxxxxx> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Reviewed-By: Sebastian Reichel <sre@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> I can't take it as is, since it depends on the private header file > >>>>>>>>>>>> of PATCHv1. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> -- Sebastian > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> This patch reviewed by Sebastian. > >>>>>>>>>>> Could you Please merge that your git tree ? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> ... and again we are adding a new driver for very similar chipset to > >>>>>>>>>> already supported. I looked at spec and the charger's registers are > >>>>>>>>>> almost the same as for max77693. Their layout and addresses are the > >>>>>>>>>> same. I see some minor differences, probably the most important would > >>>>>>>>>> be different values current (fast-charge, top-off). But still 90% of > >>>>>>>>>> registers are the same... Do we really have to add new driver? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Best regards, > >>>>>>>>>> Krzysztof > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Thank you for your comment. As you say, both chip set are similar. > >>>>>>>>> But new driver need for support max77843. It is support different below > >>>>>>>>> - Provide Battery presence information. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Another set of power supply properties could be added for that chip. > >>>>>>>> This way the get_property() function would be the same but actually the > >>>>>>>> POWER_SUPPLY_PROP_PRESENT won't be called for max77693. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> - Can OTG FET control. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Where the OTG FET feature is it enabled in your driver? I couldn't find > >>>>>>>> it. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Sorry. This driver don't control OTG FET feature. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> - Bigger Fast charge current, Top Off current Threshold selection. > >>>>>>>>> - Various and bigger OTG current limitation. > >>>>>>>>> - Bigger primary charger termination voltage setting. > >>>>>>>>> - Different maximum input current limit selection(Different step). > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Yes, I mentioned some of these differences (the Fast/top-off > >>>>>>>> differences). These are differences in values so it does not require new > >>>>>>>> driver. There is need to develop new driver just to support different > >>>>>>>> current (3.0 A instead of 2.1 A) or voltage threshold. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> They are different charging current, OTG current limitation, top off current, > >>>>>>> charging limitation value. In case OTG current limitation different not > >>>>>>> limitation value but using register bit(max77843 use[7:6] max77693 use[7] > >>>>>>> bit only). Even if this driver not support all feature, some register > >>>>>>> different with max77693(support value, use register bit). > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> If this driver will combined with max77693 may even be beneficial for > >>>>>>> new Maxim driver. But the present, this driver is related with > >>>>>>> max77843 core driver and max77843-regulator. So I hope this driver > >>>>>>> merge first. And then will extend two driver(max77843 charger and max77693 charger). > >>>>> > >>>>> I still prefer merging common drivers into one instead of creating > >>>>> some more of them. > >>>>> However I understand your point and I am not entirely opposed against. > >>>>> Especially that you invested quite a bit of time for developing this > >>>>> and my feedback was quite late. To summarize I am fine with your > >>>>> approach. > >>>>> > >>>>> Best regards, > >>>>> Krzysztof > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Dear Lee Jones, > >>>> > >>>> Could you please merge that your git tree ? > >>> > >>> Sorry, I'm lost. Why am I taking this though the MFD tree? What > >>> patches are left? Where are they going? Am I taking any other > >>> patches? > >>> > >> > >> Max77843 charger driver is max77843 mfd core dependency. > > > > What kind of dependancy? Runtime or build? Where is the patch that > > it depends on? Is it in -next for in Mainline already? > > > > Build. Max77843 charger driver use max77843-private.h. It is in for-mfd-next branch. > > c7f585f mfd: max77843: Add max77843 MFD driver core driver If that's the case, then yes, I can take this patch through the MFD tree with the correct Acks applied. -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog -- 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
