Re: [PATCH v2 5/8] power: supply: qcom_battmgr: Add charge control support

[Fenglin Wu]

On 5/30/2025 6:11 PM, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> On 30/05/2025 10:37, Fenglin Wu wrote:
> > Thanks for reviewing the change!
> >
> > On 5/30/2025 4:48 PM, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> > > On 30/05/2025 08:35, Fenglin Wu via B4 Relay wrote:
> > > > From: Fenglin Wu <fenglin.wu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > Add charge control support for SM8550 and X1E80100. It's supported
> > > > with below two power supply properties:
> > > >
> > > > charge_control_end_threshold: SOC threshold at which the charging
> > > > should be terminated.
> > > >
> > > > charge_control_start_threshold: SOC threshold at which the charging
> > > > should be resumed.
> > >
> > > Maybe this is very obvious to battery charger experts but what does
> > > SOC mean here ?
> > >
> > > Reading your patch you pass a "int soc" and compare it to a threshold
> > > value, without 'soc' having an obvious meaning.
> > >
> > > Its a threshold right ? Why not just call it threshold ?
> > "SOC" stands for battery State of Charge, I will rephrase the commit
> > text for better explanation.
> > > > Signed-off-by: Fenglin Wu <fenglin.wu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > >    drivers/power/supply/qcom_battmgr.c | 256
> > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> > > >    1 file changed, 248 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > -    if (battmgr->variant == QCOM_BATTMGR_SC8280XP)
> > > > +    if (battmgr->variant == QCOM_BATTMGR_SC8280XP ||
> > > > +            battmgr->variant == QCOM_BATTMGR_X1E80100)
> > >
> > > Please run your series through checkpatch
> > I actually did that before sending the patches out. I run checkpatch
> > with below two commands and I saw no issues:
> >
> > git format -1 xxxx --stdtout | ./script/checkpatch.pl -
> >
> > b4 prep --check
> >
> > Can you let me know what specific command that you ran with it?
>
> do $KERNELPATH/scripts/checkpatch.pl --strict $file;
> codespell $file;
Thanks, I will run the commands to check before sending next patch


> > > 0004-power-supply-qcom_battmgr-Add-state_of_health-proper.patch has no
> > > obvious style problems and is ready for submission.
> > > CHECK: Alignment should match open parenthesis
> > > #95: FILE: drivers/power/supply/qcom_battmgr.c:521:
> > > +    if (battmgr->variant == QCOM_BATTMGR_SC8280XP ||
> > > +            battmgr->variant == QCOM_BATTMGR_X1E80100)
> > >
> > > > +static int qcom_battmgr_set_charge_start_threshold(struct
> > > > qcom_battmgr *battmgr, int soc)
> > > > +{
> > > > +    u32 target_soc, delta_soc;
> > > > +    int ret;
> > > > +
> > > > +    if (soc < CHARGE_CTRL_START_THR_MIN ||
> > > > +            soc > CHARGE_CTRL_START_THR_MAX) {
> > > > +        dev_err(battmgr->dev, "charge control start threshold exceed
> > > > range: [%u - %u]\n",
> > > > +                CHARGE_CTRL_START_THR_MIN, 
> > > > CHARGE_CTRL_START_THR_MAX);
> > > > +        return -EINVAL;
> > > > +    }
> > >
> > > 'soc' is what - a threshold as far as I can tell.
> >
> > I will update it with a more meaningful name
> >
> > > >        if (opcode == BATTMGR_NOTIFICATION)
> > > >            qcom_battmgr_notification(battmgr, data, len);
> > > > -    else if (battmgr->variant == QCOM_BATTMGR_SC8280XP)
> > > > +    else if (battmgr->variant == QCOM_BATTMGR_SC8280XP ||
> > > > +            battmgr->variant == QCOM_BATTMGR_X1E80100)
> > > >            qcom_battmgr_sc8280xp_callback(battmgr, data, len);
> > > >        else
> > > >            qcom_battmgr_sm8350_callback(battmgr, data, len);
> > > > @@ -1333,7 +1560,8 @@ static void qcom_battmgr_pdr_notify(void *priv,
> > > > int state)
> > > >    static const struct of_device_id qcom_battmgr_of_variants[] = {
> > > >        { .compatible = "qcom,sc8180x-pmic-glink", .data = (void
> > > > *)QCOM_BATTMGR_SC8280XP },
> > > >        { .compatible = "qcom,sc8280xp-pmic-glink", .data = (void
> > > > *)QCOM_BATTMGR_SC8280XP },
> > > > -    { .compatible = "qcom,x1e80100-pmic-glink", .data = (void
> > > > *)QCOM_BATTMGR_SC8280XP },
> > > > +    { .compatible = "qcom,x1e80100-pmic-glink", .data = (void
> > > > *)QCOM_BATTMGR_X1E80100 },
> > > > +    { .compatible = "qcom,sm8550-pmic-glink", .data = (void
> > > > *)QCOM_BATTMGR_SM8550 },
> > >
> > > Please separate compat string addition from functional changes.
> > The compatible string "qcom,sm8550-pmic-glink" has been present in the
> > binding for a while and it was added as a fallback of "qcom,pmic-glink".
> > The battmgr function has been also supported well on SM8550 for a while.
> > The change here is only specifying a different match data for SM8550 so
> > the driver can handle some new features differently. Does it also need
> > to add it in a separate change? If so,  this change would be split into
> > following 3 patches I think:
> >
> > 1) add QCOM_BATTMGR_SM8550/X1E80100 variants definition in
> > qcom_battmgr_variant.
> >
> > 2) add compatible string with corresponding match data for SM8550.
> >
> > 3) add the charge control function support.
>
> For preference compats and functional change should be disjoined IMO.

I understand that adding a new compatible will have to be done in a 
separate change. However, when updating match data of an existing 
compatible due to a new feature, isn't it better to include it within 
the new feature?

let me know if you think that having 3 separate changes above is more 
appropriate.

Thanks

> ---
> bod