On 23/09/2024 18:29, Andreas Kemnade wrote:
> Am Wed, 18 Sep 2024 12:43:01 +0200
> schrieb Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>
>> On 18/09/2024 10:41, Andreas Kemnade wrote:
>>> Add a driver for the charger in the TWL6030/32. For now it does not
>>> report much in sysfs but parameters are set up for USB, charging is
>>> enabled with the specified parameters. It stops charging when full
>>> and also restarts charging.
>>> This prevents ending up in a system setup where you run out of
>>> battery although a charger is plugged in after precharge completed.
>>>
>>> Battery voltage behavior was checked via the GPADC.
>>>
>>
>> Few stylistic comments below.
>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Andreas Kemnade <andreas@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/power/supply/Kconfig | 10 +
>>> drivers/power/supply/Makefile | 1 +
>>> drivers/power/supply/twl6030_charger.c | 566
>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++ 3 files changed, 577 insertions(+)
>>> create mode 100644 drivers/power/supply/twl6030_charger.c
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/power/supply/Kconfig
>>> b/drivers/power/supply/Kconfig index bcfa63fb9f1e2..9f2eef6787f7a
>>> 100644 --- a/drivers/power/supply/Kconfig
>>> +++ b/drivers/power/supply/Kconfig
>>> @@ -493,6 +493,16 @@ config CHARGER_TWL4030
>>> help
>>> Say Y here to enable support for TWL4030 Battery Charge
>>> Interface.
>>> +config CHARGER_TWL6030
>>> + tristate "OMAP TWL6030 BCI charger driver"
>>> + depends on IIO && TWL4030_CORE
>>
>> || COMPILE_TEST, at least for TWL part
>> (but please test first)
>>
> ERROR: modpost: "twl_i2c_write"
> [drivers/power/supply/twl6030_charger.ko] undefined! ERROR: modpost:
> "twl_i2c_read" [drivers/power/supply/twl6030_charger.ko] undefined!
ok
>
>>
>>> + { }
>>> +};
>>> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, twl_charger_of_match);
>>> +
>>> +static struct platform_driver twl6030_charger_driver = {
>>> + .probe = twl6030_charger_probe,
>>> + .driver = {
>>> + .name = "twl6030_charger",
>>> + .of_match_table =
>>> of_match_ptr(twl_charger_of_match),
>>
>> I propose to drop of_match_ptr and maybe_unused, so this won't be
>> restricted only to OF
>>
> so that more things get compile-tested without OF? But I see no reason
> why .probe would be optimized away (and with it a lot more things) by
> the compiler.
No, it is not probe related by ACPI PRP0001
Best regards,
Krzysztof
