Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/4] power: supply: add charge_behaviour property (force-discharge, inhibit-charge) | From | Thomas Koch <> | Date | Wed, 17 Nov 2021 19:36:08 +0100 |
| |
Hi Thomas,
On 17.11.21 18:57, Thomas Weißschuh wrote: > On 2021-11-16 17:56+0100, Thomas Koch wrote: >> thank you very much for working on this. It is high time that we leave >> external kernel modules for ThinkPads behind us. >> >> On 13.11.21 11:42, Thomas Weißschuh wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> this series adds support for the charge_behaviour property to the power >>> subsystem and thinkpad_acpi driver. >>> >>> As thinkpad_acpi has to use the 'struct power_supply' created by the generic >>> ACPI driver it has to rely on custom sysfs attributes instead of proper >>> power_supply properties to implement this property. >>> >>> Patch 1: Adds the power_supply documentation and basic public API >>> Patch 2: Adds helpers to power_supply core to help drivers implement the >>> charge_behaviour attribute >>> Patch 3: Adds support for force-discharge to thinkpad_acpi. >>> Patch 4: Adds support for inhibit-discharge to thinkpad_acpi. >>> >>> Patch 3 and 4 are largely taken from other patches and adapted to the new API. >>> (Links are in the patch trailer) >>> >>> Ognjen Galic, Nicolo' Piazzalunga, Thomas Koch: >>> >>> Your S-o-b is on the original inhibit_charge and force_discharge patches. >>> I would like to add you as Co-developed-by but to do that it will also require >>> your S-o-b. Could you give your sign-offs for the new patches, so you can be >>> properly attributed? >> S-o-b/Co-developed-by/Tested-by is fine with me. >> >> I tested your patches. >> >> Hardware: >> >> - ThinkPad X220, BAT0 >> - ThinkPad T450s, BAT0+BAT1 >> - ThinkPad X1C6, BAT0 >> >> Test Results: >> >> 1. force-discharge >> >> Everythings works as expected >> - Writing including disengaging w/ "auto" : OK >> - Reading: OK >> >> - Battery discharging: OK >> - Disengaging with "auto": OK >> >> 2. inhibit-charge >> >> Works as expected: >> - Writing: OK >> >> - Disengaging with "auto": OK >> >> >> Discrepancies: >> - Battery charge inhibited: BAT0 OK, BAT1 no effect e.g. continues charging >> - Reading: always returns "auto" > > I tested it on a T460s with two batteries and there inhibit-charge works > fine for both batteries. > What does not work is setting force-discharge for both batteries at the same > time. > This makes somewhat sense as on a physical level probably only one of them can > be used at a time.
My experience confirms your consideration. The ThinkPad battery circuit can handle exactly one battery at a time i.e. - Charging, AC connected - Forced discharging, AC connected - Discharging, AC disconnected The other battery is always idle during this time.
> Mark Pearson: Could you confirm that this is the intended behaviour? > > In my changes queued for v2 of the series[0] I added validation of the written > settings and an EIO is now reported if the settings were not applied, so this > should help userspace handle this situatoin. > > The plan is to submit v2 after the first round of review for the core PM > changes.
Please wait until i'm finished with testing your queued v2. I am getting errors here and would first like to rule out homemade problems with my kernel build and/or base version.
> [0] https://git.sr.ht/~t-8ch/linux/tree/charge-control
-- Freundliche Grüße / Kind regards, Thomas Koch
Mail : linrunner@gmx.net Web : https://linrunner.de/tlp
| |