* Sebastian Reichel <sre@xxxxxxxxxx> [150311 12:37]:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 10:43:17AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > No no, "capacity-uah" is what we should use, but you need an ack from
> > the battery and device tree people that this is OK. Let's not add
> > "ti,capacity-uah” as that can obviously be a generic property.
>
> I'm okay with capacity-uah.
OK great.
> > > [...]
> >
> > Oh if they are battery spicific, then ideally we'd have generic batery
> > voltage to capacity maps property rather than a custom ti specific
> > property.
> >
> > To avoid extra hassles later on, maybe you could submit a generic
> > binding patch only documenting it to the battery people and the device
> > tree people? That will make it easier to maintain this driver in the
> > long run.
>
> Actually the proper way would be to differentiate between the
> battery and the measurement chip / adc and that should be
> implemented in the long run. The kernel's power supply framework
> is not yet ready for it, though.
>
> Example DT:
>
> battery {
> battery-specific-data;
> };
>
> fuel-gauge {
> measures = <&battery>;
> };
>
> charger {
> charges = <&battery>;
> };
>
> Since infrastructure for generic bindings is missing, I think its
> best to have the vendor properties for now and map this to generic
> properties, once they have been specified.
OK, sounds good to me. I'm fine with the $subject patch as it is then:
Acked-by: Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Tony
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
