[Dropped a couple of people from CC, added Baolin] Hi Craig, Baolin and Rob, On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 03:32:29PM +0100, Craig wrote: > On 16 September 2018 13:10:45 BST, Sebastian Reichel <sebastian.reichel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >Sorry for my long delay in reviewing this. I like the binding, > >but the "qcom," specific properties should become common properties > >in > > > >Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/supply/battery.txt > >and referenced via monitored-battery. > Thanks for the review, what bindings for ocv would you prefer? The > spreadtrum ones or mine? Most importantly I want to see only one generic binding supporting both use cases. As far as I can see there are two major differences: 1. Qcom uses legend properties and SC27XX embedds this into data 2. Qcom supports temperature based mapping The second point is easy: Not having temperature information can be a subset of the data with temperature info. The main thing to discuss are the legend properties. I suppose we have these proposals: Proposal A (from Qcom BMS binding): ocv-capacity-legend = /bits/ 8 <100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 ...>; ocv-temp-legend-celsius = /bits/ 8 <(-10) 0 25 50 65>; ocv-lut-microvolt = <43050000 43050000 43030000 42990000 Proposal B (from SC27XX binding): ocv-cap-table = <4185 100>, <4113 95>, <4066 90>, <4022 85> ...; I prefer the second binding (with mV -> uV), but I think it becomes messy when temperature is added. What do you think about the following proposal (derived from pinctrl style): Proposal C: ocv-capacity-table-temperatures = <(-10) 0 10>; ocv-capacity-table-0 = <4185000 100>, <4113000 95>, <4066000 90>, ...; ocv-capacity-table-1 = <4200000 100>, <4185000 95>, <4113000 90>, ...; ocv-capacity-table-2 = <4250000 100>, <4200000 95>, <4185000 90>, ...; -- Sebastian
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
