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 15:18:22 +0100 Message-ID: <20151013141822.GC32409@x1> References: <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> <20151013135053.GB32409@x1> <561D0E4C.4010205@samsung.com> <561D10A6.7040504@samsung.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <561D10A6.7040504@samsung.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Chanwoo Choi Cc: Charles Keepax , Mark Brown , robh+dt@kernel.org, pawel.moll@arm.com, mark.rutland@arm.com, ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk, galak@codeaurora.org, myungjoo.ham@samsung.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, patches@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 13 Oct 2015, Chanwoo Choi wrote: > On 2015=EB=85=84 10=EC=9B=94 13=EC=9D=BC 22:59, Chanwoo Choi wrote: > > On 2015=EB=85=84 10=EC=9B=94 13=EC=9D=BC 22:50, Lee Jones wrote: > >> 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: > >>>> > >>>>> 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: > >>>>> > >>>>>>>> This all seems pretty much fine to me - the things it is con= trolling are > >>>>>>>> fairly specific to the way the former Wolfson devices do, th= ey only > >>>>>>>> really make sense with a fairly particular algorithm which i= sn't widely > >>>>>>>> implemented. > >>>>> > >>>>>>> Is that an Ack? > >>>>> > >>>>>> I am guessing Mark is slightly hesitant to ack as he probably > >>>>>> doesn't want to add reviewing all our jack detection bindings = to > >>>>>> his already fairly sizable work load and doing so here likely > >>>>>> means it will be expected in the future. From talking to peopl= e at > >>>> > >>>> Providing Acks should not (and has not to my knowledge) be a bin= ding > >>>> contract to continue providing Acks. However, should more bindi= ngs be > >>>> submitted which appear as though they are related to a particula= r > >>>> maintainer, then sure, you'll be asked for your expert eye again= =2E > >>> > >>> 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 ask= ing > >> 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= there's > >>>>> specific questions that's one thing but if it's just general re= quests to > >>>>> look at bindings then it seems like the relevant subsystem main= tainers > >>>> > >>>> This is exactly my point. I am not the 'relevant subsystem > >>>> maintainer' for these properties and subsequently know nothing o= f > >>>> microphone detection, headsets, bias', etc. These look like Aud= io > >>>> related properties to me (the uninitiated), which is why you wer= e > >>>> asked. > >>> > >>> 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 w= ill > >> do just nicely. However, that begs the question; if they are an > >> Extcon thing, why aren't they in the Extcon binding document? > >=20 > > As I knew, the arizona-extcon is one device of the MFD devices=20 > > for WMxxxx series in the driver/mfd/arizona-core.c. So, If arizona-= extcon > > driver needs the some property for dt support, some property should= be > > included in MFD device tree node. There is no separate device tree = node for > > arizona-extcon driver. >=20 > If creating the separate extcon doc for extcon-arizona.c driver, it i= s possible > to make the child device tree node which is located at the below of a= rizona MFD > device tree node. >=20 > I agree about Lee's opinion to make the separate the Extcon doc for e= xtcon-arizona.c. This is how we normally document MFDs. Extcon doesn't even need to have it's own child-node (it can if you want though -- it's however you want to represent it), you can just put something like this in the MFD binding doc: Optional properties this : Does this that : Does that Also any child device specific property: GPIO See: ../extcon/arizona.txt Extcon See: ../gpio/arizona.txt Etc. Or words to that effect. See some other MFDs for examples. --=20 Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org =E2=94=82 Open source software for ARM SoCs =46ollow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog