On 12/3/24 12:02, André Draszik wrote: > On Tue, 2024-12-03 at 11:11 +0100, Thomas Antoine wrote: >> On 12/3/24 10:31, André Draszik wrote: >>> On Tue, 2024-12-03 at 10:08 +0100, Thomas Antoine wrote: >>>> On 12/3/24 07:47, André Draszik wrote: >>>>>> From: Thomas Antoine <t.antoine@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>> > [...] > >>>>>> /* >>>>>> * Model Gauge M5 Algorithm output register >>>>>> * Volatile data (must not be cached) >>>>>> @@ -369,6 +387,8 @@ static int max1720x_battery_get_property(struct >>>>>> power_supply *psy, >>>>>> val->strval = max17201_model; >>>>>> else if (reg_val == MAX172XX_DEV_NAME_TYPE_MAX17205) >>>>>> val->strval = max17205_model; >>>>>> + else if (reg_val == MAX172XX_DEV_NAME_TYPE_MAX77759) >>>>>> + val->strval = max77759_model; >>>>>> else >>>>> >>>>> This is a 16 bit register, and while yes, MAX172XX_DEV_NAME_TYPE_MASK only >>>>> cares about the bottom 4 bits, the register is described as 'Firmware >>>>> Version Information'. >>>>> >>>>> But maybe it's ok to do it like that, at least for now. >>>> >>>> I thought this method would be ok as long as there is no collision on >>>> values. I hesitated to change the model evaluation method based on chip >>>> model, where the max77759 would thus have an hard-coded value and the >>>> max1720x would still evaluate the register value. I did not do it because >>>> it led to a lot more changes for no difference. >>> >>> Downstream uses the upper bits for max77759: >>> https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/google-modules/bms/+/refs/heads/android-gs-raviole-mainline/max_m5.h#135 >>> >>> I don't know what the original max17201/5 report in this register >>> for those bits, though. Given for max77759 this register returns >>> the firmware version, I assume the lower bits can change. >> >> Based on this datasheet of the max1720x, the upper bits are the revision >> and the four lower bits are device. So it could change. >> https://www.analog.com/media/en/technical-documentation/data-sheets/MAX17201-MAX17215.pdf#MAX17201%20DS.indd%3A.213504%3A15892 >> >> If the four lower bits are not always 0 for the max77759 then I guess it >> is necessary to change this as it wouldn't work with all max77759. > > Maybe the best way forward is to go by the compatible (from DT), and > if max77759 to then print a warning if the upper bits are != 0x62 and > != 0x63. And maybe even refuse to load in that case. Will implement this for v2, thank you. Best regards, Thomas
