Hi,
On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 01:14:03PM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> On 25/02/2025 01:21, Sebastian Reichel wrote:
> > This removes .of_node from 'struct power_supply', since there
> > is already a copy in .dev.of_node and there is no need to have
> > two copies.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Sebastian Reichel <sebastian.reichel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/power/supply/power_supply_core.c | 17 ++++++++---------
> > include/linux/power_supply.h | 1 -
> > 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/power/supply/power_supply_core.c b/drivers/power/supply/power_supply_core.c
> > index d0bb52a7a0367a8e07787be211691cad14a41a54..11030035da6f121ca76bebf800c06cfd5db57578 100644
> > --- a/drivers/power/supply/power_supply_core.c
> > +++ b/drivers/power/supply/power_supply_core.c
> > @@ -200,11 +200,11 @@ static int __power_supply_populate_supplied_from(struct power_supply *epsy,
> > int i = 0;
> > do {
> > - np = of_parse_phandle(psy->of_node, "power-supplies", i++);
> > + np = of_parse_phandle(psy->dev.of_node, "power-supplies", i++);
> > if (!np)
> > break;
> > - if (np == epsy->of_node) {
> > + if (np == epsy->dev.of_node) {
> > dev_dbg(&psy->dev, "%s: Found supply : %s\n",
> > psy->desc->name, epsy->desc->name);
> > psy->supplied_from[i-1] = (char *)epsy->desc->name;
> > @@ -235,7 +235,7 @@ static int __power_supply_find_supply_from_node(struct power_supply *epsy,
> > struct device_node *np = data;
> > /* returning non-zero breaks out of power_supply_for_each_psy loop */
> > - if (epsy->of_node == np)
> > + if (epsy->dev.of_node == np)
> > return 1;
> > return 0;
> > @@ -270,13 +270,13 @@ static int power_supply_check_supplies(struct power_supply *psy)
> > return 0;
> > /* No device node found, nothing to do */
> > - if (!psy->of_node)
> > + if (!psy->dev.of_node)
> > return 0;
> > do {
> > int ret;
> > - np = of_parse_phandle(psy->of_node, "power-supplies", cnt++);
> > + np = of_parse_phandle(psy->dev.of_node, "power-supplies", cnt++);
> > if (!np)
> > break;
> > @@ -606,8 +606,8 @@ int power_supply_get_battery_info(struct power_supply *psy,
> > const __be32 *list;
> > u32 min_max[2];
> > - if (psy->of_node) {
> > - battery_np = of_parse_phandle(psy->of_node, "monitored-battery", 0);
> > + if (psy->dev.of_node) {
> > + battery_np = of_parse_phandle(psy->dev.of_node, "monitored-battery", 0);
> > if (!battery_np)
> > return -ENODEV;
>
> This reminded me of a change I once did to power_supply - but maybe never
> got it further than RFC stage. Anyways, do you think it would be possible to
> decouple the battery info and struct power_suppply (while at it)?
>
> I believe that the chargers and especially fuel-gauges which are designed to
> operate with different batteries (and which get battery details using static
> battery nodes), would like to get the battery info _before_ registering the
> power_supply (to avoid sending bogus values while operating on defaults,
> before the battery info is read and before things are set accordingly).
>
> I know this may be a bit much to ask, but I believe it'd be an improvement.
>
> Other than that, looks good to me.
I was thinking about adding an init function to power_supply_desc,
which would be called directly before psy->initialized is set to
true in the power-supply registration phase. I think that would be
the right place to setup device registers based on battery-info data.
But it's definitely not a thing for this series.
Greetings,
-- Sebastian
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
