On Sat, 2 Nov 2013 10:33:23 +1100 NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 1 Nov 2013 10:16:44 -0700 Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Hi Neil, > > > > While I'm not fundamentally opposed to this binding, I have some issues with > > its current form and would not want to see this version hit mainline. > > > > Thanks for the review. > > > On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 09:50:05AM +0000, NeilBrown wrote: > > > > > > As this device is not vendor specific, I haven't included any "vendor," > > > prefixes. For my model I used "regulator-gpio" which takes a similar > > > approach. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx> > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/extcon/extcon-gpio.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/extcon/extcon-gpio.txt > > > new file mode 100644 > > > index 000000000000..2346b61cc620 > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/extcon/extcon-gpio.txt > > > @@ -0,0 +1,26 @@ > > > +* EXTCON detector using GPIO > > > > EXTCON is _extremely_ Linux-specific. The binding document needs a description > > of the class of device it's inteded to describe that does not just refer to > > Linux internals. > > > > I would prefer if we could have a better name for this that was not tied to the > > Linux driver name. Perhaps "gpio-presence-detector"? > > Maybe "cable-presence-detector" as in this case the GPIO is just an > implementation detail. Which isn't much different from "external-connector" > which is where "extcon" comes from... > > I propose "external-connector" if you don't like "extcon". Uhm.. I just realised that what I said here doesn't make any sense - sorry. I was thinking that you were suggesting "gpio-presence-detector" as a replacement for "extcon", but of course you weren't. It is a possible replacement for "extcon-gpio", which makes lots of sense. The "Extcon" driver works in two modes. One in which is can detect which of several possible cables is inserted, and one in which is simply detects if any cable is inserted at all. extcon-gpio only supports the second. And for the second, I'm beginning to think that "presence-detector" is quite a good name. So yes: unless some serious objection arises, gpio-presence-detector is what I'll use in my next patch. Thanks, NeilBrown
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
