Hi,

On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 10:43:17AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote:

No no, "capacity-uah" is what we should use, but you need an ack from
the battery and device tree people that this is OK. Let's not add
"ti,capacity-uah? as that can obviously be a generic property.

I'm okay with capacity-uah.

quoted

[...]

Oh if they are battery spicific, then ideally we'd have generic batery
voltage to capacity maps property rather than a custom ti specific
property.

To avoid extra hassles later on, maybe you could submit a generic
binding patch only documenting it to the battery people and the device
tree people? That will make it easier to maintain this driver in the
long run.

Actually the proper way would be to differentiate between the
battery and the measurement chip / adc and that should be
implemented in the long run. The kernel's power supply framework
is not yet ready for it, though.

Example DT:

battery {
    battery-specific-data;
};

fuel-gauge {
    measures = <&battery>;
};

charger {
    charges = <&battery>;
};

Since infrastructure for generic bindings is missing, I think its
best to have the vendor properties for now and map this to generic
properties, once they have been specified.

-- Sebastian
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20150311/ba72c6cc/attachment.sig>