[Adding extcon maintainers...]
On Wed, May 04, 2022 at 01:49:12PM PDT, Mark Brown wrote:
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.
Okay -- in the case of an Open19 power shelf like the ahe-50dc, there
are 50 instances of this, 48 of which are in four ganged connectors each
with 12 pairs of pins, but two of which have their own dedicated little
individual sockets. The connectors are physically different, but
they're all identical as far as software is concerned, so I'm not clear
on why it would need to be expressed in any DT properties or the like.
Or did you just mean explanatory free-form text in the description
field?
> 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.
Alright, so would you suggest creating something like
drivers/extcon/extcon-regulator-output.c, and just having its extcon
functionality be something of a stub for now?
Thanks,
Zev
