On Saturday 24 August 2013 12:47 AM, Stephen Warren wrote: > 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? yeah, tw6035 is a name for palmas. Thanks Kishon -- 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
