On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 04:38:28PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 04:19:53PM +0100, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > I think what you are saying is that describing a generic connector via > > devicetree is not acceptable, even though it _does_ describe hardware. > > I would have to describe a specific connector for a specific hardware > > instead, which in turn would need its own driver. Is that correct ? > Regardless of how the connector is described, the block of hardware it > connects to will have to be described, and some description of the > connector will be necessary (either in the node for the block, or by > phandle to a node for the connector). I agree that having a combined IP > block + connector driver for each permutation is not good. Many of the things described only have passive components attached, or things that otherwise don't need drivers - things like power inputs or headphone connectors, they're mainly providing information to allow userspace to behave differently (eg, display a charging indicator in the UI). It's not 100% true but by and by large if detection is being done using a GPIO it's probably something like that.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
