Hello, I have written an Kernel driver for the LTC1760 which is basically an charger which can handle 2 batteries. Datasheet can be found at http://www.linear.com/product/LTC1760 However, the device has one speciality: Hence it handles two smart batteries, which are expected to sit on I2C address 0x0b, it implements an i2c mux. As the device does so, my driver does also (using i2c_add_mux_adapter() call). Further more, Linux already ships with an driver capable to talk to these smart battery chips, namely "sbs-battery". I currently using device tree to bind the LTC1760 to the smbus it sits on and further to define the i2c-lines it implements as well as the batteries sitting on the two muxed lines. Would you say this approach is technically right? The LTC expects SBS compliant batteries connected to it, which implies a standard minimal interface. But binding the batteries via device tree gives the user the freedom to specify a more specialized driver. On the other hand one could argue that if the LTC is present, also batteries are (potentially) present and the LTC driver is responsible to read the related registers and provide proper PM attributes. Personally I don't like to rewrite or copy code wich works just fine... Greetings Karl-Heinz Schneider -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
