lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Sep]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 4/7] power: supply: axp20x-battery: support AXP803
From
Date
Hi Icenowy,

On 20/09/2017 17:18, Icenowy Zheng wrote:
> The AXP803 PMIC has battery support like other AXP PMICs, but with
> different definition of max target charging voltage and constant
> charging current.
>
> Add support for AXP803 battery in axp20x-battery driver.
>
> Signed-off-by: Icenowy Zheng <icenowy@aosc.io>
> ---
> drivers/power/supply/axp20x_battery.c | 88 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 78 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/power/supply/axp20x_battery.c b/drivers/power/supply/axp20x_battery.c
> index 7494f0f0eadb..c9a9fb320c92 100644
> --- a/drivers/power/supply/axp20x_battery.c
> +++ b/drivers/power/supply/axp20x_battery.c
> @@ -49,6 +49,8 @@
[...]
> static void constant_charge_current_to_raw(struct axp20x_batt_ps *axp, int *val)
> {
> - if (axp->axp_id == AXP209_ID)
> + switch (axp->axp_id) {
> + case AXP209_ID:
> *val = (*val - 300000) / 100000;
> - else
> + break;
> + case AXP221_ID:
> *val = (*val - 300000) / 150000;
> + break;
> + case AXP803_ID:
> + *val = (*val - 200000) / 200000;
> + /*
> + * The maximum charge current on AXP803 is 2.8A, and the
> + * datasheet says "1110-1111 reserved" in this part.
> + * So we return an invalid value -1 in this situation,
> + * which will be dealed by the caller of this function,
> + */

Good, we could do that for the two others compatible as well. They are
not explicitly marked as reserved but it stops at 1100 for AXP223/AXP221
for example.

> + if (*val > 13)
> + *val = -1;
> + break;
> + }
> }
>
> static int axp20x_get_constant_charge_current(struct axp20x_batt_ps *axp,
> @@ -269,9 +322,13 @@ static int axp20x_battery_get_prop(struct power_supply *psy,
> if (ret)
> return ret;
>
> - if (axp20x_batt->axp_id == AXP221_ID &&
> - !(reg & AXP22X_FG_VALID))
> - return -EINVAL;
> + switch (axp20x_batt->axp_id) {
> + case AXP221_ID:
> + case AXP803_ID:
> + if (!(reg & AXP22X_FG_VALID))
> + return -EINVAL;
> + break;
> + };

Looks weird to me.

if (axp20x_batt->axp_id != AXP209_ID && !(reg & AXP22X_FG_VALID))

would be a better match?
[...]

Thanks,
Quentin

--
Quentin Schulz, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-09-25 10:59    [W:0.139 / U:0.112 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site