RE: [PATCH 1/2] power_supply: Add charge control struct in powersupply class

[Tc, Jenny]

> 
> > > +struct power_supply_charger_control {
> > > +	const char *name;
> > > +	/* get charging status */
> > > +	int (*is_charging_enabled)(void);
> > > +	int (*is_charger_enabled)(void);
> > > +
> > > +	/* set charging parameters */
> > > +	int (*set_in_current_limit)(int uA);
> > > +	int (*set_charge_current)(int uA);
> > > +	int (*set_charge_voltage)(int uV);
> > > +
> > > +	/* control battery charging */
> > > +	int (*enable_charging)(void);
> > > +	int (*disable_charging)(void);
> > > +
> > > +	/* control VSYS or system supply */
> > > +	int (*turnon_charger)(void);
> > > +	int (*turnoff_charger)(void);
> > > +};
> > > +
> >
> > I'm all for this patch, but why do you need to place it into
> > power_supply.h and power_supply_core.c? :) I see nothing generic here,
> > it's pure charger-manager stuff. So, place everything into charger-
> manager.{c,h}.
> 
> Hi Anton,
> 
> The main reason for keeping this stuff in power_supply.h and
> power_supply_core.c is to make these interfaces uniform Across multiple
> charger frameworks and to avoid each charger framework define it's own
> interfaces. If there is need for new callback They can add to the existing struct
> defined above and it will available to all the frameworks. Also the work
> required to support a new Framework will be reduced if the driver already
> support any one of the existing frameworks.
> 

Rama,

The similar functionalities are exposed by patch https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/18/219.
As per Anton's review comments on this patch, I'll be moving the macros to power_supply.h.
Wouldn't that be enough ?
¢éì®&Þ~º&¶¬–+-±éÝ¥Šw®žË±Êâmébžìdz¹Þ)í…æèw*jg¬±¨¶‰šŽŠÝj/êäz¹ÞŠà2ŠÞ¨è­Ú&¢)ß«a¶Úþø®G«éh®æj:+v‰¨Šwè†Ù>Wš±êÞiÛaxPjØm¶ŸÿÃ-»+ƒùdš_