From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chanwoo Choi Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] mfd: arizona: Update DT binding documentation for mic detection Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 22:59:40 +0900 Message-ID: <561D0E4C.4010205@samsung.com> 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> <20151013135053.GB32409@x1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-reply-to: <20151013135053.GB32409@x1> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Lee Jones , Charles Keepax Cc: 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 Hi Lee, 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: >=20 >> 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 contro= lling are >>>>>>> fairly specific to the way the former Wolfson devices do, they = only >>>>>>> really make sense with a fairly particular algorithm which isn'= 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 people a= t >>> >>> 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. >> >> 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 >>>> Pretty much (plus generally being busy at ELC-E last week) - if th= ere's >>>> specific questions that's one thing but if it's just general reque= sts to >>>> look at bindings then it seems like the relevant subsystem maintai= ners >>> >>> 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. >> >> 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. >=20 > 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? 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-extc= on 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. Thanks, Chanwoo Choi >=20 >>>> should have the confidence to review straightfoward device propert= ies >>>> like this. >>> >>> 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. >> >> I also wish our designers would make less complex hardware sigh. >> >> 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. >=20 > Hopefully there won't be too many more bindings to come? >=20 > My issue is that as they are not MFD related, I need some advice from > my colleagues to whom they are related to. >=20 >> 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. >=20 > Put them in the subsystem where they pertain to -- job done. >=20