Re: [RFC] add standardized attributes for force_discharge and inhibit_charge

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 2021-10-06T21:24+0200, Thomas Koch wrote:
> Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2021 21:24:14 +0200
> From: Thomas Koch <linrunner@xxxxxxx>
> To: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx>, Sebastian Reichel
>  <sebastian.reichel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Thomas Weißschuh <thomas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Nicolò Piazzalunga
>  <nicolopiazzalunga@xxxxxxxxx>, linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
>  "platform-driver-x86@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
>  <platform-driver-x86@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "smclt30p@xxxxxxxxx"
>  <smclt30p@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [RFC] add standardized attributes for force_discharge and
>  inhibit_charge
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
>  Thunderbird/78.13.0
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On 06.10.21 19:47, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On 10/6/21 6:28 PM, Sebastian Reichel wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > On Wed, Oct 06, 2021 at 05:27:22PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > > > On 10/6/21 4:49 PM, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > > > > On 2021-10-06T10:10+0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > > > > > On 10/6/21 12:06 AM, Sebastian Reichel wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 05, 2021 at 08:01:12PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > > > > > > > Right, force-discharge automatically implies charging is
> > > > > > > > being inhibited, so putting this in one file makes sense.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Any suggestion for the name of the file?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Maybe like this?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > What: /sys/class/power_supply/<supply_name>/charge_behaviour
> > > > > > > Date: October 2021
> > > > > > > Contact: linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > > Description:
> > > > > > >   Configure battery behaviour when a charger is being connected.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >   Access: Read, Write
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >   Valid values:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >   0: auto / no override
> > > > > > >      When charger is connected battery should be charged
> > > > > > >   1: force idle
> > > > > > >      When charger is connected the battery should neither be charged
> > > > > > >      nor discharged.
> > > > > > >   2: force discharge
> > > > > > >      When charger is connected the battery should be discharged
> > > > > > >      anyways.
> > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > That looks good to me. Although I just realized that some hw may
> > > > > > only support 1. or 2. maybe explicitly document this and that
> > > > > > EOPNOTSUPP will be reported when the value is not supported
> > > > > > (vs EINVAL for plain invalid values) ?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Would that not force a userspace applications to offer all possibilities to
> > > > > the user only to tell them that it's not supported?
> > > > > If the driver knows what is supported and what not it should make this
> > > > > discoverable without actually performing the operation.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Maybe something along the lines of /sys/power/mem_sleep.
> > > > 
> > > > Good point, but something like /sys/power/mem_sleep works
> > > > very differently then how all the other power_supply properties work.
> > > 
> > > Actually we already use this format in power-supply for USB
> > > types, implemented in power_supply_show_usb_type().
> > > 
> > > > In general if something is supported or not on a psy class
> > > > device is communicated by the presence / absence of attributes.
> > > > 
> > > > So I think we should move back to having 2 separate attributes
> > > > for this after all; and group the 2 together in the doc and
> > > > document that enabling (setting to 1) one of force_charge /
> > > > inhibit_charge automatically clears the setting of the other.
> > > > 
> > > > Then the availability of the features can simply be probed
> > > > by checking for the presence of the property files.
> > > 
> > > If it's two files, then somebody needs to come up with proper
> > > names. Things like 'force_discharge' look sensible in this context,
> > > but on a system with two batteries (like some Thinkpads have) it
> > > is easy to confuse with "I want to discharge this battery before
> > > the other one (while no AC is connected)". > Ah I did not realize there was already some (read-only) precedence
> > for this in the psy subsystem.
> > 
> > Since there is precedence for this using
> > /sys/class/power_supply/<supply_name>/charge_behaviour
> > 
> > with an example contents of say:
> > 
> > [auto] inhibit-charge force-discharge
> > 
> > Works for me and having 1 file instead of 2 is better then
> > because this clearly encapsulates that inhibit-charge and
> > force-discharge are mutually exclusive.
> In fact they do not reset each other on ThinkPads. It's possible to
> 
> 1. set force_discharge=1 -- discharging commences
> 2. set inhibit_charge=1 -- discharging continues, force_discharge remains 1
> 3. set force_discharge=0 -- battery does not charge, inhibit_charge
> remains 1

But in the end there are only three states the user cares about, or?
(inhibit, force_discharge and normal)

So when selecting inhibit or force_discharge the driver itself can reset the
other option so the users do not have to care about the internal state of the
EC.

Thomas



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux