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

[Chanwoo Choi]

On 2015ë 10ì 13ì 22:59, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
> Hi Lee,
> 
> On 2015ë 10ì 13ì 22:50, Lee Jones wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Oct 2015, Charles Keepax wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> I've already made it a condition, as I refuse to blindly accept
>> unknown bindings.  Taking a sea of bindings I have no knowledge of
>> would be a bad-thing(tm).  If these were GPIO bindings, I'd be asking
>> Linus for help, likewise if they were I2C, I'd be asking Wolfram.
>>
>>>>> 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.
>>
>> Now I know that jack detection is an Extcon thing and Extcon Ack will
>> do just nicely.  However, that begs the question; if they are an
>> Extcon thing, why aren't they in the Extcon binding document?
> 
> As I knew, the arizona-extcon is one device of the MFD devices 
> for WMxxxx series in the driver/mfd/arizona-core.c. So, If arizona-extcon
> driver needs the some property for dt support, some property should be
> included in MFD device tree node. There is no separate device tree node for
> arizona-extcon driver.

If creating the separate extcon doc for extcon-arizona.c driver, it is possible
to make the child device tree node which is located at the below of arizona MFD
device tree node.

I agree about Lee's opinion to make the separate the Extcon doc for extcon-arizona.c.

[snip]

Thanks,
Chanwoo Choi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/