Message-ID: <20151013135053.GB32409@x1>
Date:	Tue, 13 Oct 2015 14:50:53 +0100
From:	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To:	Charles Keepax <ckeepax@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Cc:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, cw00.choi@...sung.com,
	robh+dt@...nel.org, pawel.moll@....com, mark.rutland@....com,
	ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk, galak@...eaurora.org,
	myungjoo.ham@...sung.com, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, patches@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] mfd: arizona: Update DT binding documentation for
 mic detection

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?

> > > 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.

Hopefully there won't be too many more bindings to come?

My issue is that as they are not MFD related, I need some advice from
my colleagues to whom they are related to.

> 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.

Put them in the subsystem where they pertain to -- job done.

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
--
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