From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752985Ab3ISQnN (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Sep 2013 12:43:13 -0400 Received: from cassiel.sirena.org.uk ([80.68.93.111]:45755 "EHLO cassiel.sirena.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751157Ab3ISQnD (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Sep 2013 12:43:03 -0400 Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 17:42:45 +0100 From: Mark Brown To: Mark Rutland Cc: Guenter Roeck , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "rob.herring@calxeda.com" , Pawel Moll , Stephen Warren , Ian Campbell , MyungJoo Ham , Chanwoo Choi , "grant.likely@linaro.org" , Kishon Vijay Abraham I Message-ID: <20130919164245.GG21013@sirena.org.uk> References: <1377836978-24082-1-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <1377836978-24082-6-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <20130912164100.GF22013@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20130912165304.GA12202@roeck-us.net> <20130916142147.GF30650@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20130916151953.GA5801@roeck-us.net> <20130918153828.GB17453@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="QC2OnzLPmgM3Ncx9" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130918153828.GB17453@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com> X-Cookie: Give him an evasive answer. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 86.153.71.95 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: broonie@sirena.org.uk Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 5/6] extcon-gpio: Describe devicetree bindings X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:57:07 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on cassiel.sirena.org.uk) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --QC2OnzLPmgM3Ncx9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 04:38:28PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 04:19:53PM +0100, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > I think what you are saying is that describing a generic connector via > > devicetree is not acceptable, even though it _does_ describe hardware. > > I would have to describe a specific connector for a specific hardware > > instead, which in turn would need its own driver. Is that correct ? > Regardless of how the connector is described, the block of hardware it > connects to will have to be described, and some description of the > connector will be necessary (either in the node for the block, or by > phandle to a node for the connector). I agree that having a combined IP > block + connector driver for each permutation is not good. Many of the things described only have passive components attached, or things that otherwise don't need drivers - things like power inputs or headphone connectors, they're mainly providing information to allow userspace to behave differently (eg, display a charging indicator in the UI). It's not 100% true but by and by large if detection is being done using a GPIO it's probably something like that. --QC2OnzLPmgM3Ncx9 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.21 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSOymCAAoJELSic+t+oim9PXQP/0a+jgxqfxO6JZ6TbalHx6r2 HAf4JyhuDDZtdmiAZ5LY7JV1ke84qxTDLZE4P9OlSiK6/UW3PGoEt9RTS2cDJCuC SL2SUBaBeKX4XQTr4i6NPWjwl5Qv8oUq0Un8jb1eZY8DYabPbdWUcgLjnCZp6y16 6sUqrv0/OLpCcHb72dEcKpYoZqrZQxecHiFhxgnunc1rgco4FfhK7PldtbMp01FZ bJNnhpPKL0kCFaj6YMYFKYmBQ11nTj81NJI16DOVZlFVZRJNxA6bEvh4e/NDpUyi 2smp/edpQqkGybGSvcke/GaZOCApFZV92NvvKCtungk1+IV3jLX4s/JKhTMLAfqT 4bhC7KmVuDdnQZgrjv1JJDocntvxCx3LhB9gkO68xw2C5DNd9AAhjtr/UyQvxymq 7R5td/KumhVvNTL7FowUh8zjkaaOLcxN/XJnug+/BQlFwbRkiWKRrHe/gi7untu+ 2S8LrbqvXV3WYdWMDFRfp7lq3WJUkW7Qj/I35bqnmrmHiDpDbn4CqK6K130+3l5M C1hzQ8+JSh8o0isctR7v8f3xRK8bJlaDTOaNaNP1znCqxlGaWXLv6x80F0Sh/TWl 4QPbslMbSd/JCJ9dBu43auLJgNEnBhwDauVAsA0nL+Tiy4fOdFACExOtxkxoHaD9 7xD5w1ZBVoT28N8clyqO =lsDU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --QC2OnzLPmgM3Ncx9--