On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 03:34:53PM +0000, Adam Thomson wrote: > On 21 May 2018 15:56, Heikki Krogerus wrote: > > > On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 01:58:16PM +0000, Adam Thomson wrote: > > > Hi Heikki, > > > > > > On 21 May 2018 14:20, Heikki Krogerus wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 05:00:46PM +0100, Adam Thomson wrote: > > > > > For supply registration, provide of_node pointer of the port device, > > > > > via the power_supply_config structure, to allow other psy drivers > > > > > to add us as a supplier using the 'power-supplies' DT property. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Adam Thomson <Adam.Thomson.Opensource@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > --- > > > > > drivers/usb/typec/tcpm.c | 1 + > > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/usb/typec/tcpm.c b/drivers/usb/typec/tcpm.c > > > > > index 72996cc..e7c0b95 100644 > > > > > --- a/drivers/usb/typec/tcpm.c > > > > > +++ b/drivers/usb/typec/tcpm.c > > > > > @@ -4500,6 +4500,7 @@ static int devm_tcpm_psy_register(struct tcpm_port > > > > *port) > > > > > char *psy_name; > > > > > > > > > > psy_cfg.drv_data = port; > > > > > + psy_cfg.of_node = port->dev->of_node; > > > > > psy_name = devm_kzalloc(port->dev, psy_name_len, GFP_KERNEL); > > > > > if (!psy_name) > > > > > return -ENOMEM; > > > > > > > > Would it be possible to use fwnode here instead? It would mean that > > > > you add a member for it to the struct power_supply_config, and handle > > > > it separately in power_supply_core.c. You could just convert it to > > > > of_node there for now. > > > > > > > > That is just a request, I'm fine with this, but it would prepare this > > > > driver for all types of platforms, so less patching would be needed > > > > once we add ACPI support to the power_supply_core.c. > > > > > > Would the following commit from Hans, already present in power_supply_core.c, > > > not fit the bill: > > > > > > [58a36bb06891ee779074db6ef84e98347c634d38] > > > power: supply: core: Add support for supplied-from device-property > > > > > > Or was that just meant as a stop gap for something more? > > > > I think the main idea with that patch was that it allows us to take > > advantage of build-in device properties, but I think we could actually > > improve also it if we had the fwnode handle assigned to the psy. We > > would not have to assume the parent has those device properties then. > > > > But ACPI actually defines a specific object called _PCL (power > > consumer list) for power source objects that we should one day check > > in power_supply_core.c. That's what I meant by ACPI support. > > Ok, fair enough. Makes sense to me. Thanks for clarifying. > > > > I have no problems adding something further, but I don't have a means to verify > > > anything ACPI based, beyond a simple build test, so would ideally want someone > > > to verify that path through the code. > > > > This is not really about ACPI. By using fwnode handle instead of > > of_node, we would continue to keep tcpm.c agnostic about the type of > > hw description. > > > > So I don't expect any ACPI support to be added to the > > power_supply_code.c at this point. You can use to_of_node(cfg->fwnode) > > in __power_supply_register() for now: > > > > psy->of_node = cfg->of_node; > > if (cfg->fwnode) > > psy->of_node = to_of_node(cfg->fwnode); > > OK, no problem. Will take a look and add that in. Thanks Adam! -- heikki -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
