[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150224191806.GB13094@psi-dev26.jf.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 11:18:06 -0800
From: David Cohen <david.a.cohen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Robert Baldyga <r.baldyga@...sung.com>,
heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com
Cc: MyungJoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@...sung.com>,
Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-usb@...r.kernel.org" <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com, balbi@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] extcon: otg_gpio: add driver for USB OTG port
controlled by GPIO(s)
Hi,
[snip]
> Felipe suggested to "divide to conquer" instead of having a single
> extcon driver to handle all these functions:
>
> - The mux functions would be controlled by a possible new pinctrl-gpio
> driver (Linus, your input here would be nice :)
> - The VBUS would be a fixed regulator
> - The USB ID would make usage of existent extcon-gpio
>
> But the on fw side, this is a single ACPI device representing a virtual
> device for USB OTG port, which is nothing but a bunch of independent
> GPIOs.
>
> I could make a mfd driver to register devices for those simpler and more
> generic drivers, but according to [1] community recognized it as a hack
> with ACPI since I'd need to give them the GPIO without requesting on
> mfd.
I believe this case could be resumed in:
Would be [1] acceptable for mfd drivers?
- If yes, I can split this driver into more generic ones
- If no, I see no other option but having this driver fully controlling
the USB OTG port.
BR, David
[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/12/18/82
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists