On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 23:42, Matheus Castello [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Mon, 27 May 2019 at 04:45, Matheus Castello [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

For configure low level state of charge threshold alert signaled from
max17040 we add "maxim,alert-low-soc-level" property.

Signed-off-by: Matheus Castello <matheus@castello.eng.br>
---
  .../power/supply/max17040_battery.txt         | 28 +++++++++++++++++++
  1 file changed, 28 insertions(+)
  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/supply/max17040_battery.txt

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/supply/max17040_battery.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/supply/max17040_battery.txt
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..a13e8d50ff7b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/supply/max17040_battery.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+max17040_battery
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Required properties :
+ - compatible : "maxim,max17040" or "maxim,max77836-battery"

One more comment. The datasheet for max17040 says that there is on
ALERT pin and ALERT bits in RCOMP register. Which device are you
using? If it turns out that max17040 does not support it, then the
driver and bindings should reflect this - interrupts should not be set
on max17040.

Yes you are right, max17040 have no ALERT pin. I am using max17043. Let
me know what you think would be best, put a note about it in the
description, add a compatibles like "maxim,max17043" and
"maxim,max17044"? What do you think?

Usually in such case driver should behave differently for different
devices. This difference is chosen by compatible. Since there is
already max77836 compatible - which has the ALERT pin (probably it
just includes 17043 fuel gauge) - you can customize it. No need for
new compatible, unless it stops working on max77836...

Anyway, configuring interrupts on max17040 would be probably harmless
but still it is not really correct. The registers should not be
touched in such case.

Best regards,
Krzysztof