From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934425AbdCVNKT (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Mar 2017 09:10:19 -0400 Received: from mga06.intel.com ([134.134.136.31]:63577 "EHLO mga06.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751698AbdCVNKI (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Mar 2017 09:10:08 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.36,205,1486454400"; d="scan'208";a="63628724" Message-ID: <1490188199.19767.164.camel@linux.intel.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] Revert "extcon: usb-gpio: add support for ACPI gpio interface" From: Andy Shevchenko To: Chanwoo Choi , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, MyungJoo Ham Cc: Lu Baolu Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 15:09:59 +0200 In-Reply-To: <58D1D00F.40300@samsung.com> References: <20170321183747.32450-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> <58D1D00F.40300@samsung.com> Organization: Intel Finland Oy Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.22.5-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2017-03-22 at 10:14 +0900, Chanwoo Choi wrote: > Hi, > > On 2017년 03월 22일 03:37, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > The commit 942c7924a51e introduced a check for ACPI handle for the > > device that never appears on any ACPI-enabled platform so far. It > > seems > > a confusion with extcon-intel-int3496 which does support ACPI- > > enabled > > platforms. > > Only for the reason that there is no any usecase until now, > and remove the confusion between extcon-usb-gpio and extcon-intel- > int3496. > Should we revert it?  > > I think that both extcon-usb-gpio and extcon-intel-int3496 > driver are not same operation perfectly. Also, the filename > of extcon-intel-int3496 has specific name. Instead, extcon-usb-gpio.c > is more common device driver. > > Can the extcon-intel-int3496.c support the everything on acpi side? For my understanding we have the only driver for now for USB mux in the kernel for ACPI-enabled platforms. Besides confusion, it makes harder to fix a real bugs in at least GPIO ACPI library since we need to amend any user of it first. While confusion is here, I can't do anything to not possible break the functionality of the driver in a real use case if any (I doubt there is any in this particular case). So, my opinion here is "yes, we should revert it until we have a confirmation that there is a product which is using this among with ACPI" (which I doubt ever exists). > > > > > Revert commit 942c7924a51e to avoid any confusion in the future. > > > > Cc: Lu Baolu > > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko > > --- > >  drivers/extcon/extcon-usb-gpio.c | 3 +-- > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/extcon/extcon-usb-gpio.c > > b/drivers/extcon/extcon-usb-gpio.c > > index d47573a31e17..9c925b05b7aa 100644 > > --- a/drivers/extcon/extcon-usb-gpio.c > > +++ b/drivers/extcon/extcon-usb-gpio.c > > @@ -26,7 +26,6 @@ > >  #include > >  #include > >  #include > > -#include > >  #include > >   > >  #define USB_GPIO_DEBOUNCE_MS 20 /* ms */ > > @@ -111,7 +110,7 @@ static int usb_extcon_probe(struct > > platform_device *pdev) > >   struct usb_extcon_info *info; > >   int ret; > >   > > - if (!np && !ACPI_HANDLE(dev)) > > + if (!np) > >   return -EINVAL; > >   > >   info = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*info), GFP_KERNEL); > > > > -- Andy Shevchenko Intel Finland Oy