On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 10:57 PM Hans de Goede <hdego...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 12/9/20 5:50 AM, Chris Chiu wrote:
> > The ECS EF20EA laptop ships an AXP288 but it is actually using a
> > different, separate FG chip for AC and battery monitoring. On this
> > laptop we need to keep using the regular ACPI driver and disable the
> > AXP288 FG to avoid reporting two batteries to userspace.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Chris Chiu <c...@endlessos.org>
> > ---
> > drivers/power/supply/axp288_fuel_gauge.c | 6 ++++++
> > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/power/supply/axp288_fuel_gauge.c
> > b/drivers/power/supply/axp288_fuel_gauge.c
> > index 148eb8105803..a15c322c79ea 100644
> > --- a/drivers/power/supply/axp288_fuel_gauge.c
> > +++ b/drivers/power/supply/axp288_fuel_gauge.c
> > @@ -739,6 +739,12 @@ static const struct dmi_system_id
> > axp288_fuel_gauge_blacklist[] = {
> > DMI_MATCH(DMI_PRODUCT_NAME, "Z83-4"),
> > }
> > },
> > + {
> > + /* ECS EF20 */
> > + .matches = {
> > + DMI_MATCH(DMI_PRODUCT_NAME, "EF20"),
> > + },
> > + },
> > {}
> > };
>
> The axp288_fuel_gauge_blacklist already has the following entry:
>
> {
> /* ECS EF20EA */
> .matches = {
> DMI_MATCH(DMI_PRODUCT_NAME, "EF20EA"),
> },
> },
>
> So is this real entry really necessary? The existing entry
> matches the quirk for this in drivers/acpi/battery.c:
>
> {
> /* ECS EF20EA, AXP288 PMIC but uses separate fuel-gauge */
> .callback = battery_do_not_check_pmic_quirk,
> .matches = {
> DMI_MATCH(DMI_PRODUCT_NAME, "EF20EA"),
> },
> },
>
> And the one in drivers/acpi/ac.c:
>
> {
> /* ECS EF20EA, AXP288 PMIC but uses separate fuel-gauge */
> .callback = ac_do_not_check_pmic_quirk,
> .matches = {
> DMI_MATCH(DMI_PRODUCT_NAME, "EF20EA"),
> },
> },
>
> So I don't think that this patch is necessary...
>
> Regards,
>
> Hans
>
>
Thanks for pointing that out. We kept this downstreamly for a long time and
didn't notice it's already there.
