lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Oct]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 11/13] i2c: cht-wc: Add support for devices using a bq25890 charger
    On Sat, Oct 30, 2021 at 08:28:11PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
    > The i2c-controller on the Cherry Trail - Whiskey Cove PMIC is special
    > in that it is always connected to the I2C charger IC of the board on
    > which the PMIC is used; and the charger IC is not described in ACPI,
    > so the i2c-cht-wc code needs to instantiate an i2c-client for it itself.
    >
    > So far there has been a rudimentary check to make sure the ACPI tables
    > are at least somewhat as expected by checking for the presence of an
    > INT33FE device and sofar the code has assumed that if this INT33FE
    > device is present that the used charger then is a bq24290i.
    >
    > But some boards with an INT33FE device in their ACPI tables use a
    > different charger IC and some boards don't have an INT33FE device at all.
    >
    > Since the information about the used charger + fuel-gauge + other chips is
    > necessary in other places too, the kernel now adds a "intel,cht-wc-setup"
    > string property to the Whiskey Cove PMIC i2c-client based on DMI matching,
    > which reliably describes the board's setup of the PMIC.
    >
    > Switch to using the "intel,cht-wc-setup" property and add support for
    > instantiating an i2c-client for either a bq24292i or a bq25890 charger.
    >
    > This has been tested on a GPD pocket (which uses the old bq24292i setup)
    > and on a Xiaomi Mi Pad 2 with a bq25890 charger.
    >
    > Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>

    In general, fine with me from the I2C side:

    Acked-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa@kernel.org>


    > + else if (!strcmp(str, "bq24292i,max17047,fusb302,pi3usb30532"))
    > + board_info = &bq24190_board_info;
    > + else if (!strcmp(str, "bq25890,bq27520"))
    > + board_info = &bq25890_board_info;

    Very minor nit: I prefer 'strcmp() == 0' because the above could be read
    as 'if not strcmp()' which is sadly misleading. But I am not strict with
    it.

    [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2021-10-31 18:59    [W:2.418 / U:0.012 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site