From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Warren Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] extcon: palmas: Added a new compatible type *ti,palmas-usb-vid* Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 13:17:34 -0600 Message-ID: <5217B54E.8070009@wwwdotorg.org> References: <1377160283-26934-1-git-send-email-kishon@ti.com> <5216798E.8070900@wwwdotorg.org> <52174755.8030506@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <52174755.8030506@ti.com> Sender: linux-doc-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Kishon Vijay Abraham I Cc: bcousson@baylibre.com, tony@atomide.com, myungjoo.ham@samsung.com, cw00.choi@samsung.com, rob.herring@calxeda.com, pawel.moll@arm.com, mark.rutland@arm.com, ian.campbell@citrix.com, rob@landley.net, george.cherian@ti.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux@arm.linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, balbi@ti.com List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.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?