On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 05:35:55PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote: > On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 11:28:54AM +0200, Philipp Rosenberger wrote: > > The nxp,battery-switch-over property is used to control the switch-over, > > battery low detection and extra power fail detection functions. > > > > The PCF2131 has a different default value for the PWRMNG bits. It is set > > to 0x7: battery switch-over function is disabled, only one power supply > > (VDD); battery low detection function is disabled. > > This is the opposite of the default of the PCF2127/PCA2129 and PCF2129. > > With the nxp,battery-switch-over the behavior can be controlled through > > the device tree. > > > > Signed-off-by: Philipp Rosenberger <p.rosenberger@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/nxp,pcf2127.yaml | 10 ++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/nxp,pcf2127.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/nxp,pcf2127.yaml > > index 2d9fe5a75b06..5739c3e371e7 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/nxp,pcf2127.yaml > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/nxp,pcf2127.yaml > > @@ -30,6 +30,16 @@ properties: > > > > reset-source: true > > > > + nxp,battery-switch-over: > > + description: > > + Battery and power related configuration. This property is used to set the > > + PWRMNG bits of the Control_3 register to control the battery switch-over, > > + battery low detection and extra power fail detection functions. > > + The actual supported functions depend on the device capabilities. > > + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint8 > > + minimum: 0 > > + maximum: 7 > > Beyond the fact that I dislike register-content properties like this, where > it is not possible to grok the meaning by reading the property, what > even makes this suitable for DT in the first place? Reading the commit > message this sounds like software policy, and that different users of > the same board might want to configure these register bits in different > ways. Especially that according to commit msg this is model specific, so compatible already defines different default value of this register. Best regards, Krzysztof
