Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 11:22:14AM +0900, MyungJoo Ham wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 1:25 AM, Mark Brown > > wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 03:40:38PM +0900, MyungJoo Ham wrote: > > >> External connector devices that decides connection information based on > > >> ADC values may use adc-jack device driver. The user simply needs to > > >> provide a table of adc range and connection states. Then, extcon > > >> framework will automatically notify others. > > > > This really should be done in terms of the IIO in-kernel framework. > > > The ADC part may be done in IIO. However, the intention of this device > > driver is to provide extcon interface to any ADC drivers, not > > providing an ADC device driver. If we are going to implement this in > > Right, exactly. > > > the ADC driver in IIO, we will need to write the given code in every > > ADC driver used for analog ports. > > No, that's not what I'm suggesting - what I'm suggesting is that rather > than having a callback for implementing the ADC read functionality this > should work as an in-kernel IIO driver so it'll just automatically work > with any ADC without needing code to hook things up. Unless I've not > understood your comment fully. Ok. Do you mean that we should give struct iio_dev * and struct iio_chan_spec * instead of a callback? I thought there was no standard framework for ADC (the reason why this is a simple callback); however, may I regard iio/adc as the standard for ADC? (I see some ADC device drivers in HWMON) Do I need to make this driver as an iio device driver in order to do this? I guess including iio.h would be enough anyway. > > > >> + /* Check the length of array and set num_cables */ > > >> + for (i = 0; data->edev.supported_cable[i]; i++) > > >> + ; > > >> + if (i == 0 || i > SUPPORTED_CABLE_MAX) { > > > > Can we not avoid the hard limit? > > > Without that limit, we won't be able to easily express binary cable > > status (u32) with the extcon framework. At least, we will need to > > forget about setting the status with u32 values. > > > Anyway, I can remove the checking SUPPORT_CABLE_MAX part at probe. > > It might be clearer to make the limit more obviously associated with > the bitmask - it looks like it's an array thing the way the code is > written but a limit due to using a bitmask seems reasonable. > > Ah.. I'll add a comment or update the error message associated. Cheers! MyungJoo. {.n++%ݶw{.n+{G{ayʇڙ,jfhz_(階ݢj"mG?&~iOzv^m ?I