On Fri, 1 Nov 2013 10:16:44 -0700 Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote:
While I'm not fundamentally opposed to this binding, I have some issues with
its current form and would not want to see this version hit mainline.
Thanks for the review.
On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 09:50:05AM +0000, NeilBrown wrote:
As this device is not vendor specific, I haven't included any "vendor,"
prefixes. For my model I used "regulator-gpio" which takes a similar
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx>
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/extcon/extcon-gpio.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/extcon/extcon-gpio.txt
new file mode 100644
@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+* EXTCON detector using GPIO
EXTCON is _extremely_ Linux-specific. The binding document needs a description
of the class of device it's inteded to describe that does not just refer to
I would prefer if we could have a better name for this that was not tied to the
Linux driver name. Perhaps "gpio-presence-detector"?
Maybe "cable-presence-detector" as in this case the GPIO is just an
implementation detail. Which isn't much different from "external-connector"
which is where "extcon" comes from...
I propose "external-connector" if you don't like "extcon".
+ - compatible: "extcon-gpio"
+ - gpios: gpio line that detects connector
+ - interrupts: interrupt generated by that gpio
We don't need this. If we need the interrupt a gpio generates, we should ask
the gpio controller driver to map the gpio to an interrupt.
We have gpiod_to_irq for this in Linux.
The reason I did this was that the pre-existing platform_data wants
'irq_flags'. I could have an 'irq-flags' property, but it seems to make more
sense to use "interrupts" as that already provides a way to pass irq-flags to
On reflection though, I cannot imagine why any extcon-gpio would use anything
other than IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_BOTH. Maybe MyungJoo Ham can explain that???
If there is no need for specifying irq-flags per-platform, the "interrupts"
property can definitely go.