On 2/16/2013 5:38 PM, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 06:36:54PM -0500, Rhyland Klein wrote:
This property is meant to be used in device nodes which represent
power_supply devices that wish to provide a list of supplies to
which they provide power. A common case is a AC Charger with
the batteries it powers.
Signed-off-by: Rhyland Klein <rkl...@nvidia.com>
---
.../bindings/power_supply/power_supply.txt | 17 +++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
create mode 100644
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power_supply/power_supply.txt
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power_supply/power_supply.txt
b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power_supply/power_supply.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..1c58d4ff
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power_supply/power_supply.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+Power Supply Core Support
+
+Optional Properties:
+ - power-supply,supplied-nodes : This property is added to a supply
+ in order to specify the list of supplicant devices directly by their
+ phandles.
"supplied nodes" sounds confusing (doesn't reflect direction), IMO. I'd
rather call it power-supply,supplied-to = <&some_battery>;
But... I'm recalling there was a similar discussion not that long ago, and
Arnd came up with the idea that supplied-to is not fully in spirit of DT,
and proposed his view of proper bindings. Please find the discussion here:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2012/9/14/104
Thanks,
Anton
Ahhh, I missed that when I glanced around. I think this does make more
sense. This sounds like it would entail adding some amount of complexity
to the power_supply subsystem, namely, being able to register
"supplied-to" devices with "suppliers". Is that something that has been
looked into yet? If not I might see how it plays out.
Thanks for the pointer!
-rhyland
--
nvpublic
_______________________________________________
devicetree-discuss mailing list
devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
