Hi,
> > +struct power_supply_charger {
> > + int (*get_property)(struct power_supply_charger *psyc,
> > + enum psy_charger_control_property pspc,
> > + union power_supply_propval *val);
>
> The charging framework can simply call the same get_property
> as used by sysfs. This is already done by all kind of drivers.
The idea is to separate power supply properties from power supply
charger properties. Existing power supply properties exposes a generic
property of a power supply. But the properties introduced above, is used
to control charging. But I agree, if the charger properties are moved to
enum power_supply_property{ }, the existing set_property()/get_property()
calls can be used
>
> > + int (*set_property)(struct power_supply_charger *psyc,
> > + enum psy_charger_control_property pspc,
> > + const union power_supply_propval *val);
>
> I guess this is needed for values, which are supposed to be
> writable by the kernel / charging framework, but non-writable
> by the sysfs. I suggest to add set_property_kernel() instead
> (and make the above properties part of enum power_supply_property)
>
If properties are moved to enum power_supply_property {}, then it's possible
to reuse the set_property() call. property_is_writeable() can be used to block
user space write access.
> > +};
> > +
> > struct power_supply {
> > const char *name;
> > enum power_supply_type type;
> > @@ -200,6 +226,8 @@ struct power_supply {
> > void (*external_power_changed)(struct power_supply *psy);
> > void (*set_charged)(struct power_supply *psy);
> >
> > + struct power_supply_charger *psy_charger;
>
> Why is this a pointer?
This is introduced to access charger properties using power supply object.
If the properties can be accessed using existing set_property/get_property(),
then this is not really needed
-Jenny
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
