On 08/23/2013 05:28 AM, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: > Hi, > > On Friday 23 August 2013 02:20 AM, Stephen Warren wrote: >> On 08/22/2013 02:31 AM, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: >>> The Palmas device contains only a USB VBUS-ID detector, so added a >>> compatible type *ti,palmas-usb-vid*. Didn't remove the existing compatible >>> types for backward compatibility. >> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/extcon/extcon-palmas.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/extcon/extcon-palmas.txt >> >>> PALMAS USB COMPARATOR >>> Required Properties: >>> - - compatible : Should be "ti,palmas-usb" or "ti,twl6035-usb" >>> + - compatible : Should be "ti,palmas-usb-vid". "ti,twl6035-usb" and >>> + "ti,palmas-usb" is deprecated and is kept for backward compatibility. >> >> So this defines one new value and deprecates the two old values. > > yeah. >> >> Why isn't a new "ti,twl6035-usb-vid" entry useful? Don't you still need > > yeah, it should be added too. >> SoC-specific compatible values so the driver can enable any SoC-specific >> bug-fixes/workarounds later if needed? > > hmm.. Palmas is external to SoC. So not sure if adding SoC specific compatible > values is such a good idea. In this case, but SoC, I meant the Palmas chip rather than the application processor. Is twl6035 a name for Palmas or something else? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
