On 2015년 10월 13일 22:59, Chanwoo Choi wrote: > 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. If creating the separate extcon doc for extcon-arizona.c driver, it is possible to make the child device tree node which is located at the below of arizona MFD device tree node. I agree about Lee's opinion to make the separate the Extcon doc for extcon-arizona.c. [snip] Thanks, Chanwoo Choi -- 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
