On 03/03/2025 09:13, Svyatoslav Ryhel wrote: > пн, 3 бер. 2025 р. о 09:52 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> пише: >> >> On 27/02/2025 12:03, Svyatoslav Ryhel wrote: >>> чт, 27 лют. 2025 р. о 12:45 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> пише: >>>> >>>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 11:36:59AM +0200, Svyatoslav Ryhel wrote: >>>>> + maxim,fcharge-current-limit-microamp: >>>>> + description: >>>>> + Fast-Charge current limit >>>>> + minimum: 250000 >>>>> + default: 500000 >>>>> + maximum: 1550000 >>>>> + >>>>> + maxim,fcharge-timer-hours: >>>>> + description: >>>>> + Fast-Charge timer in hours. Setting this value 3 and lower or 11 and higher >>>>> + will disable Fast-Charge timer. >>>>> + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32 >>>>> + default: 5 >>>> >>>> You still did not answer why this is board specific. This was rejected >>>> in the past because of that reason and nothing here changed. Nothing Where are the arguments to existing/previous decisions? >>>> will change without detailed explanation, so use other interfaces if you Again, where is detailed explanation why time is determined per board, unlike previously agreed that it is not? >>>> need user-space to configure it (see other drivers, e.g. maxim) >>>> >>> >>> Btw, I have used this awesome example you have provided. Take a look >> >> Where did I provide this example? >> > > Its presence in the docs is an example on its no? You have explicitly > told to check other maxim devices, I did so, they all have similar set > of convifurations. Choose rather later or latest, not 12 YO, binding as an example. > >>> >>> https://web.git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/supply/maxim,max77693.yaml?h=v6.14-rc4 >> >> I opened it and I do not see anything about time. Please point to >> specific line. >> >> But regardless, how did I propose to use 12 year old binding? Where did >> I suggest that one? >> >>> >>> Oh, I wonder why it uses so much values which duplicate battery? I >>> know, it lacks battery, I assume that is why? >> >> No. You added to DT something which is not a hardware property, but >> user-space choice or policy. >> > > It is NOT a user-space choice or policy! Previous discussions on the lists - since you mention 12 year old binding, so also discussions 12 years ago - determined that they are closer to them than board configuration. I already said - this was rejected in the past - so now I am repeating myself. You did not bring any arguments just keep repeating "no", so I suggest reading previous discussions and coming with arguments against them. Best regards, Krzysztof
