From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kishon Vijay Abraham I Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] extcon: palmas: Added a new compatible type *ti, palmas-usb-vid* Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 17:33:19 +0530 Message-ID: <521B4407.2090600@ti.com> References: <1377160283-26934-1-git-send-email-kishon@ti.com> <5216798E.8070900@wwwdotorg.org> <52174755.8030506@ti.com> <5217B54E.8070009@wwwdotorg.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <5217B54E.8070009@wwwdotorg.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: Stephen Warren Cc: mark.rutland@arm.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, george.cherian@ti.com, linux@arm.linux.org.uk, ian.campbell@citrix.com, pawel.moll@arm.com, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, tony@atomide.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rob.herring@calxeda.com, cw00.choi@samsung.com, myungjoo.ham@samsung.com, balbi@ti.com, rob@landley.net, bcousson@baylibre.com, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org 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