Hi Lee, On 2015년 10월 13일 22:50, Lee Jones wrote: > 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? As I knew, the arizona-extcon is one device of the MFD devices for WMxxxx series in the driver/mfd/arizona-core.c. So, If arizona-extcon driver needs the some property for dt support, some property should be included in MFD device tree node. There is no separate device tree node for arizona-extcon driver. Thanks, Chanwoo Choi > >>>> 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. > -- 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
