From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754398Ab3HVUua (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Aug 2013 16:50:30 -0400 Received: from avon.wwwdotorg.org ([70.85.31.133]:47743 "EHLO avon.wwwdotorg.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753210Ab3HVUu2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Aug 2013 16:50:28 -0400 Message-ID: <5216798E.8070900@wwwdotorg.org> Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:50:22 -0600 From: Stephen Warren User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130803 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 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 Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] extcon: palmas: Added a new compatible type *ti,palmas-usb-vid* References: <1377160283-26934-1-git-send-email-kishon@ti.com> In-Reply-To: <1377160283-26934-1-git-send-email-kishon@ti.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. Why isn't a new "ti,twl6035-usb-vid" entry useful? Don't you still need SoC-specific compatible values so the driver can enable any SoC-specific bug-fixes/workarounds later if needed?