On 12/2/21 03:57, Linus Walleij wrote:

On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 7:33 AM Vaittinen, Matti
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Well, I don't know how constant such degradation is over time. I just
guess it is not constant but might be proportional to age-compensated
capacity rather than the designed capacity. It'd be nice to use correct
approximation of reality in device-tree...

IIUC the degradation of a battery is related to number of full charge cycles,
i.e. the times that the battery has been emptied and recharged fully.
This is of course never happening in practice, so e.g. two recharge cycles
from 50% to 100% is one full charge cycle. So you integrate this
over time (needs to be saved in a file system or flash if the battery does
not say it itself). 

Yes.

This measures how much the lithium ions have moved around in the
electrolyte and thus how much chemical interaction the battery has
seen.

Then the relationship between complete charge cycles and capacity
degradation is certainly also going to be something nonlinear so it
needs manufacturer data for the battery.

Right. As far as I understand, at least part of the 'aging degradation' 
comes from the fact that battery materials are 'vaporizing' when battery 
is charged. And as far as I understand, the temperature in which 
charging occurs has a big impact on this. Eg, higher the temperature 
where you do charging, worse the degradation. Which means that the cycle 
count should actually be weighed by the charging temperature.

But this kind of missed my point :) I was thinking of how to give the 
absolute (uAh) value of capacity drop caused by the temperature. My 
original RFC patch gave this as linear change of absolute uAh's at a 
temperature range.

As you pointed, we should not include the linearity in the DT model. So 
the next step would be to just give measured value pairs (should be done 
by battery vendor or computed by some theoretical basis) of absolute 
uAh/temperature - and leave fitting of the data points to be done by SW.

What I was now considering is that maybe the capacity drop (in uAhs) 
caused by the temperature change - is not the same for new and old 
battery. It sounds more logical to me that the capacity drop caused by 
the temperature is proportional to the maximum capacity battery is 
having at that point of it's life. Eg, if new battery can hold 80 units 
of energy, and drops 20 units of energy when temperature changes from T0 
=> T1 - an badly aged battery which now only can hold 40 units would 
lose only 10 units at that same temperature drop T0 => T1. I was 
wondering if such an assumption is closer to the truth than saying that 
bot of the batteries would lose same 20 units - meaning that the new 
battery would lose 25% of energy at temperature drop T0 => T1 but old 
one would lose 50% of the capacity. I somehow think both of the 
batteries, old and new, would lose same % of capacity at the temperature 
change.

So, if this assumption is correct, then we should give the temperature 
impact as proportion of the full capacity taking the aging into account. 
So if we happen to know the aging impact to the capacity, then software 
should use aging compensation prior computing the temperature impact. If 
aging information or impact is not known, then designed capacity can be 
used as a fall-back, even though it means we will probably be somewhat 
off for old batteries.

My problem here is that I just assume the impact of temperature is 
proportional to the full-capacity which takes the aging into account. 
Knowing how this really is would be cool so we could get the temperature 
impact modelled correctly in DT.

quoted

By the way, I was reading the ab8500 fuel-gauge driver as you suggested.
So, if I am correct, you used the battery internal resistance + current
to compute the voltage-drop caused by battery internal resistance. This
for sure improves the accuracy when we assume VBAT can be used as OCV.

Yes this is how it is done. With a few measurements averaged to
iron out the noise.

quoted

Epilogue:
In general, I see bunch of power-supply drivers scheduling work for
running some battery-measurements. Some do this periodically (I think
the ab8500 did this although I lost the track when I tried to see in
which case the periodic work was not scheduled - and maybe for
fuel-gauging) or after an IRQ is triggered (for example to see if change
indication should be sent).

Yes there is some tight community of electronic engineers who read the
right articles and design these things. We don't know them :(

Right. By the way, I heard tha the TI has patent protecting some type of 
battery internal resistance usage here. OTOH, ROHM has patent over some 
of the VDROP value table stuff. Occasionally it feels like the ice is 
getting thinner at each step here. :/

Best Regards
	Matti Vaittinen

-- 
The Linux Kernel guy at ROHM Semiconductors

Matti Vaittinen, Linux device drivers
ROHM Semiconductors, Finland SWDC
Kiviharjunlenkki 1E
90220 OULU
FINLAND

~~ this year is the year of a signature writers block ~~