From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lee Jones Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] mfd: arizona: Update DT binding documentation for mic detection Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 14:50:53 +0100 Message-ID: <20151013135053.GB32409@x1> References: <1443803363-3251-1-git-send-email-ckeepax@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <1443803363-3251-5-git-send-email-ckeepax@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <20151007100017.GB12635@sirena.org.uk> <20151007122642.GH17172@x1> <20151012084554.GB8805@ck-lbox> <20151012134309.GE1542@sirena.org.uk> <20151013080218.GV17172@x1> <20151013121450.GD8805@ck-lbox> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20151013121450.GD8805@ck-lbox> Sender: devicetree-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Charles Keepax Cc: Mark Brown , cw00.choi-Sze3O3UU22JBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org, robh+dt-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, pawel.moll-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org, mark.rutland-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org, ijc+devicetree-KcIKpvwj1kUDXYZnReoRVg@public.gmane.org, galak-sgV2jX0FEOL9JmXXK+q4OQ@public.gmane.org, myungjoo.ham-Sze3O3UU22JBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org, devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, patches-yzvPICuk2AATkU/dhu1WVueM+bqZidxxQQ4Iyu8u01E@public.gmane.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org 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: > >=20 > > > 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: > > >=20 > > > > > > This all seems pretty much fine to me - the things it is co= ntrolling are > > > > > > fairly specific to the way the former Wolfson devices do, t= hey only > > > > > > really make sense with a fairly particular algorithm which = isn't widely > > > > > > implemented. > > >=20 > > > > > Is that an Ack? > > >=20 > > > > I am guessing Mark is slightly hesitant to ack as he probably > > > > doesn't want to add reviewing all our jack detection bindings t= o > > > > his already fairly sizable work load and doing so here likely > > > > means it will be expected in the future. From talking to people= at > >=20 > > Providing Acks should not (and has not to my knowledge) be a bindin= g > > 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. >=20 > 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 t= here's > > > specific questions that's one thing but if it's just general requ= ests to > > > look at bindings then it seems like the relevant subsystem mainta= iners > >=20 > > 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. >=20 > 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? > > > should have the confidence to review straightfoward device proper= ties > > > like this. > >=20 > > I don't think these bindings are particularly straightforward. The > > contain many terms which I'm unfamiliar with, and again, to me (the > > uninitiated) this looks like way too many bindings just to see if a= n > > audio jack is plugged in or not. >=20 > I also wish our designers would make less complex hardware sigh. >=20 > Apologies I didn't mean to cause any offense here, I am just > getting a bit concerned about how I can get any DT support for > jack detection upstreamed. I am more than happy to fix up any > comments anyone has or answer any questions about what things > are or why they are required. Hopefully there won't be too many more bindings to come? My issue is that as they are not MFD related, I need some advice from my colleagues to whom they are related to. > The jack detection on these chips is fairly complex and there are > going to be plenty more patches before we have full support for > it in DT. So I think it would be good for everyone if we can > agree some process for how to handle this type of patch. Put them in the subsystem where they pertain to -- job done. --=20 Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org =E2=94=82 Open source software for ARM SoCs =46ollow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" i= n the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html