On 03/27/2015 04:57 PM, Lee Jones wrote: > On Fri, 27 Mar 2015, Beomho Seo wrote: >> On 03/26/2015 10:54 PM, Lee Jones wrote: >>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2015, Beomho Seo wrote: >>>> On 03/24/2015 05:38 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>>> 2015-03-24 9:01 GMT+01:00 Beomho Seo <beomho.seo@xxxxxxxxxxx>: >>>>>> On 03/10/2015 10:44 PM, Beomho Seo wrote: >>>>>>> On 03/09/2015 09:13 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>>>>>> On pon, 2015-03-09 at 20:46 +0900, Beomho Seo wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 03/09/2015 08:02 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>>>>>>>> 2015-03-09 1:35 GMT+01:00 Beomho Seo <beomho.seo@xxxxxxxxxxx>: >>>>>>>>>>> On 03/08/2015 05:13 AM, Sebastian Reichel wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 07:10:35PM +0900, Jaewon Kim wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Beomho Seo <beomho.seo@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> This patch adds device driver of max77843 charger. This driver provide >>>>>>>>>>>>> initialize each charging mode(e.g. fast charge, top-off mode and constant >>>>>>>>>>>>> charging mode so on.). Additionally, control charging paramters to use >>>>>>>>>>>>> i2c interface. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Sebastian Reichel <sre@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Beomho Seo <beomho.seo@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Reviewed-By: Sebastian Reichel <sre@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I can't take it as is, since it depends on the private header file >>>>>>>>>>>> of PATCHv1. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- Sebastian >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This patch reviewed by Sebastian. >>>>>>>>>>> Could you Please merge that your git tree ? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ... and again we are adding a new driver for very similar chipset to >>>>>>>>>> already supported. I looked at spec and the charger's registers are >>>>>>>>>> almost the same as for max77693. Their layout and addresses are the >>>>>>>>>> same. I see some minor differences, probably the most important would >>>>>>>>>> be different values current (fast-charge, top-off). But still 90% of >>>>>>>>>> registers are the same... Do we really have to add new driver? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>>> Krzysztof >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thank you for your comment. As you say, both chip set are similar. >>>>>>>>> But new driver need for support max77843. It is support different below >>>>>>>>> - Provide Battery presence information. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Another set of power supply properties could be added for that chip. >>>>>>>> This way the get_property() function would be the same but actually the >>>>>>>> POWER_SUPPLY_PROP_PRESENT won't be called for max77693. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> - Can OTG FET control. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Where the OTG FET feature is it enabled in your driver? I couldn't find >>>>>>>> it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sorry. This driver don't control OTG FET feature. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> - Bigger Fast charge current, Top Off current Threshold selection. >>>>>>>>> - Various and bigger OTG current limitation. >>>>>>>>> - Bigger primary charger termination voltage setting. >>>>>>>>> - Different maximum input current limit selection(Different step). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes, I mentioned some of these differences (the Fast/top-off >>>>>>>> differences). These are differences in values so it does not require new >>>>>>>> driver. There is need to develop new driver just to support different >>>>>>>> current (3.0 A instead of 2.1 A) or voltage threshold. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> They are different charging current, OTG current limitation, top off current, >>>>>>> charging limitation value. In case OTG current limitation different not >>>>>>> limitation value but using register bit(max77843 use[7:6] max77693 use[7] >>>>>>> bit only). Even if this driver not support all feature, some register >>>>>>> different with max77693(support value, use register bit). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If this driver will combined with max77693 may even be beneficial for >>>>>>> new Maxim driver. But the present, this driver is related with >>>>>>> max77843 core driver and max77843-regulator. So I hope this driver >>>>>>> merge first. And then will extend two driver(max77843 charger and max77693 charger). >>>>> >>>>> I still prefer merging common drivers into one instead of creating >>>>> some more of them. >>>>> However I understand your point and I am not entirely opposed against. >>>>> Especially that you invested quite a bit of time for developing this >>>>> and my feedback was quite late. To summarize I am fine with your >>>>> approach. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Krzysztof >>>>> >>>> >>>> Dear Lee Jones, >>>> >>>> Could you please merge that your git tree ? >>> >>> Sorry, I'm lost. Why am I taking this though the MFD tree? What >>> patches are left? Where are they going? Am I taking any other >>> patches? >>> >> >> Max77843 charger driver is max77843 mfd core dependency. > > What kind of dependancy? Runtime or build? Where is the patch that > it depends on? Is it in -next for in Mainline already? > Build. Max77843 charger driver use max77843-private.h. It is in for-mfd-next branch. c7f585f mfd: max77843: Add max77843 MFD driver core driver >> If you think this patch will suitable for battery tree(or other tree), >> I would like request for merge battery tree. > > If this patch has no build dependencies on patches which are in -next, > but not in Mainline then it will have to go in via the same tree that > the dependencies were applied to. If the dependencies are already in > Mainline, or they are not build-deps, then it should go in via the > correct tree, which I believe is Sebastian's tree. > >> Also, I will send again this patch and device tree binding document. > > Either way you should do that. Mark them as RESEND instead of PATCH > and apply all of the Acks you have accumulated so far. > I will send new version because binding document have been modified. As your comment patch will be mark. Best regards Beomho Seo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
