On Tue, 13 Oct 2015, Charles Keepax wrote: > On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 09:02:18AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > > On Mon, 12 Oct 2015, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 09:45:54AM +0100, Charles Keepax wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 01:26:42PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 07 Oct 2015, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > > > > > > This all seems pretty much fine to me - the things it is controlling are > > > > > > fairly specific to the way the former Wolfson devices do, they only > > > > > > really make sense with a fairly particular algorithm which isn't widely > > > > > > implemented. > > > > > > > > Is that an Ack? > > > > > > > I am guessing Mark is slightly hesitant to ack as he probably > > > > doesn't want to add reviewing all our jack detection bindings to > > > > his already fairly sizable work load and doing so here likely > > > > means it will be expected in the future. From talking to people at > > > > Providing Acks should not (and has not to my knowledge) be a binding > > contract to continue providing Acks. However, should more bindings be > > submitted which appear as though they are related to a particular > > maintainer, then sure, you'll be asked for your expert eye again. > > Its not a binding contract to continue providing them but we are > making that a condition of merging any patches, which means I > will need to chase Mark for Acks, as it seems the DT maintainers > won't have any interest in reviewing/acking these. I've already made it a condition, as I refuse to blindly accept unknown bindings. Taking a sea of bindings I have no knowledge of would be a bad-thing(tm). If these were GPIO bindings, I'd be asking Linus for help, likewise if they were I2C, I'd be asking Wolfram. > > > Pretty much (plus generally being busy at ELC-E last week) - if there's > > > specific questions that's one thing but if it's just general requests to > > > look at bindings then it seems like the relevant subsystem maintainers > > > > This is exactly my point. I am not the 'relevant subsystem > > maintainer' for these properties and subsequently know nothing of > > microphone detection, headsets, bias', etc. These look like Audio > > related properties to me (the uninitiated), which is why you were > > asked. > > It would be sensible I guess to define whether I should be > including audio people on jack detection patches even if they > don't touch audio subsystems. I was treating jack detection > as an extcon thing and thus assuming that the extcon maintainer > would be sufficient, but perhaps that is an incorrect assumption. Now I know that jack detection is an Extcon thing and Extcon Ack will do just nicely. However, that begs the question; if they are an Extcon thing, why aren't they in the Extcon binding document? > > > should have the confidence to review straightfoward device properties > > > like this. > > > > I don't think these bindings are particularly straightforward. The > > contain many terms which I'm unfamiliar with, and again, to me (the > > uninitiated) this looks like way too many bindings just to see if an > > audio jack is plugged in or not. > > I also wish our designers would make less complex hardware sigh. > > Apologies I didn't mean to cause any offense here, I am just > getting a bit concerned about how I can get any DT support for > jack detection upstreamed. I am more than happy to fix up any > comments anyone has or answer any questions about what things > are or why they are required. Hopefully there won't be too many more bindings to come? My issue is that as they are not MFD related, I need some advice from my colleagues to whom they are related to. > The jack detection on these chips is fairly complex and there are > going to be plenty more patches before we have full support for > it in DT. So I think it would be good for everyone if we can > agree some process for how to handle this type of patch. Put them in the subsystem where they pertain to -- job done. -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
