From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: swarren@wwwdotorg.org (Stephen Warren)
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 13:17:34 -0600
Subject: [PATCH v4] extcon: palmas: Added a new compatible type *ti,
 palmas-usb-vid*
In-Reply-To: <52174755.8030506@ti.com>
References: <1377160283-26934-1-git-send-email-kishon@ti.com>
 <5216798E.8070900@wwwdotorg.org> <52174755.8030506@ti.com>
Message-ID: <5217B54E.8070009@wwwdotorg.org>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

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?