Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751066AbdL3PYM (ORCPT ); Sat, 30 Dec 2017 10:24:12 -0500 Received: from gagarine.paulk.fr ([109.190.93.129]:64478 "EHLO gagarine.paulk.fr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750959AbdL3PYK (ORCPT ); Sat, 30 Dec 2017 10:24:10 -0500 From: Paul Kocialkowski To: devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-sunxi@googlegroups.com Cc: Lee Jones , Rob Herring , Mark Rutland , Chen-Yu Tsai , Russell King , Maxime Ripard Subject: [PATCH 0/3] axp20x backup battery charging Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2017 16:23:27 +0100 Message-Id: <20171230152330.28946-1-contact@paulk.fr> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.15.1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 737 Lines: 14 This series introduces support for axp20x backup battery charging, with a dedicated device-tree property. I wondered whether to include this in a power-supply driver or not. Since it does not, in fact, supply power to the whole system and because no status changes over time, I thought it would be inappropriate to craft a power supply driver only for this. I also wondered whether to stick this into an existing power-supply driver, as is done by e.g. twl4030, but we have two distinct supply drivers for the axp20x (ac and usb), that may be used together or not. Also, the backup battery isn't tied to the power supply anyway. This is why I thought it would make more sense to put this in the mfd driver directly. What do you think?