Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] mfd: arizona: Update DT binding documentation for mic detection

Charles Keepax
2015-10-13T12:34:47Z

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 controlling 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 at
>
> Providing Acks should not (and has not to my knowledge) be a binding
> 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.

>
> > Pretty much (plus generally being busy at ELC-E last week) - if there's
> > specific questions that's one thing but if it's just general requests to
> > look at bindings then it seems like the relevant subsystem maintainers
>
> 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.

>
> > should have the confidence to review straightfoward device properties
> > 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 an
> 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.

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.

Thanks,
Charles