On Wed, May 04, 2022 at 01:33:58PM -0700, Zev Weiss wrote: > On Wed, May 04, 2022 at 05:55:53AM PDT, Mark Brown wrote: > > I think at a minimum anything like this would need some sort of > > representation of how the output physically appears so that people can > > work out how outputs are mapped to the hardware they see. > I don't quite understand what you're describing here -- could you elaborate > on what you mean by "how the output physically appears", and what that might > look like in a DT binding? For example if the output comes out on a socket then that socket should be described. > > However we > > already have a subsystem for external connectors - extcon. Perhaps this > > should be a regulator client in the extcon API? It's common for > > connectors to include some sort of power provision so it seems like this > > would fit right in. > Interesting -- I wasn't previously aware of the extcon subsystem, thanks for > the pointer. However, after looking at it a bit, I'm not sure I see how > it'd be applicable here, since it looks like it's built to handle hardware > that's at least sophisticated enough for software to tell whether or not > something's plugged in, which isn't the case here. The connector is just a > ground pin and +12VDC pin, no presence-detection mechanism or anything else. > Outside of the regulator itself there's really no "device" there for > software to talk to or otherwise interact with at all. Sure, but there's no reason why it can't scale down to something simpler. It's easier to support something simpler than have to extend to support something more complicated.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
