On Wednesday 07 August 2024 17:28:32 Andres Salomon wrote: > On Fri, 26 Jul 2024 20:46:22 +0200 > Armin Wolf <W_Armin@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > Am 26.07.24 um 20:42 schrieb Armin Wolf: > > > > > Am 26.07.24 um 06:25 schrieb Andres Salomon: > > > > > >> On Fri, 26 Jul 2024 02:04:09 +0200 > > >> Pali Rohár <pali@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> > > >>> On Friday 26 July 2024 01:48:50 Armin Wolf wrote: > > >>>> Am 26.07.24 um 00:15 schrieb Pali Rohár: > > >>>> > > >>>>> On Thursday 25 July 2024 16:24:57 Andres Salomon wrote: > > >>>>>> On Thu, 25 Jul 2024 01:01:58 +0200 > > >>>>>> Pali Rohár <pali@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On Wednesday 24 July 2024 18:23:18 Andres Salomon wrote: > > >> [...] > > >>>>>>> The issue here is: how to tell kernel that the particular > > >>>>>>> dell_battery_hook has to be bound with the primary battery? > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> So from userspace, we've got the expectation that multiple batteries > > >>>>>> would show up as /sys/class/power_supply/BAT0, > > >>>>>> /sys/class/power_supply/BAT1, > > >>>>>> and so on. > > >>>>> Yes, I hope so. > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> The current BAT0 entry shows things like 'capacity' even without > > >>>>>> this > > >>>>>> patch, and we're just piggybacking off of that to add charge_type > > >>>>>> and > > >>>>>> other entries. So there shouldn't be any confusion there, agreed? > > >>>>> I have not looked at the battery_hook_register() code yet (seems > > >>>>> that I > > >>>>> would have to properly read it and understand it). But does it > > >>>>> mean that > > >>>>> battery_hook_register() is adding hook just for "BAT0"? > > >>>>> > > >>>>> What I mean: cannot that hook be registered to "BAT1" too? Because if > > >>>>> yes then we should prevent it. Otherwise this hook which is for "Dell > > >>>>> Primary Battery" could be registered also for secondary battery > > >>>>> "BAT1". > > >>>>> (I hope that now it is more clear what I mean). > > >>>> Hi, > > >>>> > > >>>> the battery hook is being registered to all ACPI batteries present > > >>>> on a given system, > > >>>> so you need to do some manual filtering when .add_battery() is called. > > >>> Ok. So it means that the filtering based on the primary battery in > > >>> add_battery callback is needed. > > >>> > > >> Thanks for the explanations. Seems simple enough to fix that, as some of > > >> the other drivers are checking battery->desc->name for "BAT0". > > >> > > >> > > >> One thing that I keep coming back to, and was reinforced as I looked at > > >> include/linux/power_supply.h; the generic power supply charge_type has > > >> values that are very close to Dells, but with different names. I could > > >> shoehorn them in, though, with the following mappings: > > >> > > >> POWER_SUPPLY_CHARGE_TYPE_FAST, => "express" (aka ExpressCharge) > > >> POWER_SUPPLY_CHARGE_TYPE_STANDARD, => "standard" > > >> POWER_SUPPLY_CHARGE_TYPE_ADAPTIVE, => "adaptive" > > >> POWER_SUPPLY_CHARGE_TYPE_CUSTOM, => "custom" > > >> POWER_SUPPLY_CHARGE_TYPE_LONGLIFE, => "primarily_ac" > > >> > > >> The main difference is that Primarily AC is described and documented as > > >> slightly different than Long Life, but I suspect the result is roughly > > >> the same thing. And the naming "Fast" and "Long Life" wouldn't match the > > >> BIOS naming of "ExpressCharge" and "Primarily AC". > > >> > > >> Until now I've opted to match the BIOS naming, but I'm curious what > > >> others > > >> think before I send V3 of the patches. > > > > > > I agree that POWER_SUPPLY_CHARGE_TYPE_FAST should be mapped the > > > ExpressCharge, > > > but i think that "primarily_ac" should become a official power supply > > > charging mode. > > > > > > The reason is that for example the wilco-charger driver also supports > > > such a charging mode > > > (currently reported as POWER_SUPPLY_CHARGE_TYPE_TRICKLE) and the > > > charging mode seems to be > > > both sufficiently different from > > > POWER_SUPPLY_CHARGE_TYPE_LONGLIFE/POWER_SUPPLY_CHARGE_TYPE_TRICKLE > > > and sufficiently generic to be supported by a wide array of devices. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Armin Wolf > > > > > I just read the documentation regarding the charge_type sysfs attribute and it states that: > > > > Trickle: > > Extends battery lifespan, intended for users who > > primarily use their Chromebook while connected to AC. > > > > So i think that "primarily_ac" should be mapped to POWER_SUPPLY_CHARGE_TYPE_TRICKLE. > > Do you think it's worth keeping around the sysfs-class-power-dell > file? At this point it's basically just documenting the slight naming > differences: > > > Standard: > Fully charge the battery at a moderate rate. > Fast: > Quickly charge the battery using fast-charge > technology. This is harder on the battery than > standard charging and may lower its lifespan. > The Dell BIOS calls this ExpressCharge™. > Trickle: > Users who primarily operate the system while > plugged into an external power source can extend > battery life with this mode. The Dell BIOS calls > this "Primarily AC Use". > Adaptive: > Automatically optimize battery charge rate based > on typical usage pattern. > Custom: > Use the charge_control_* properties to determine > when to start and stop charging. Advanced users > can use this to drastically extend battery life. > > Access: Read, Write > Valid values: > "Standard", "Fast", "Trickle", > "Adaptive", "Custom" Another option could be to extend the description in sysfs-class-power file that "Trickle" covers "Dell's Primarily AC Use" and "Fast" covers "Dell's ExpressCharge". So if somebody is going to implement charge_type for some other Laptop vendor then this information can help.
