Re: [PATCH v2 6/8] dt-bindings: soc: qcom: pmic-glink: Move X1E80100 out of fallbacks

[Fenglin Wu <fenglin.wu@oss.qualcomm.com>]

On 6/3/2025 2:47 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 03/06/2025 08:42, Fenglin Wu wrote:
>> On 6/2/2025 3:40 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 30/05/2025 09:35, Fenglin Wu via B4 Relay wrote:
>>>> From: Fenglin Wu <fenglin.wu@oss.qualcomm.com>
>>>>
>>>> Move X1E80100 out of the fallbacks of SM8550 in pmic-glink support.
>>> Why?
>>>
>>> Do not describe what you do here, it's obvious. We see it from the diff.
>>>
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Krzysztof
>> Previously, in qcom_battmgr driver, x1e80100 was specified with a match
>> data the same as sc8280xp, also sm8550 was treated a fallback of sm8350
>> without the need of a match data.
>>
>> In ucsi_glink driver, sm8550 had a match data and x1e80100 was treated
>> as a fallback of sm8550. There was no issues to make x1e80100 as a
>> fallback of sm8550 from both qcom_battmgr and ucsi_glink driver perspective.
>>
>> In patch [5/8] in this series, in qcom_battmgr driver, it added charge
>> control functionality for sm8550 and x1e80100 differently hence
>> different match data was specified for them, and it makes x1e80100 ad
>> sm8550 incompatible and they need to be treated differently.
> So you break ABI and that's your problem to fix. You cannot make devices
> incompatible without good justification.

I would say x1e80100 and sm8550 are different and incompatible from a 
battery management firmware support perspective. The x1e80100 follows 
the sc8280xp as a compute platform, whereas the sm8550 follows the 
sm8350 as a mobile platform.

The difference between them was initially ignored because the sm8550 
could use everything that the sm8350 has, and no match data needed to be 
specified for it. However, now the sm8550 has new features that the 
sm8350 doesn't have, requiring us to treat it differently, thus the 
incompatibility was acknowledged.

>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof