Re: [PATCH] extcon-gpio: add devicetree support.

2013-11-04 Thread Mark Brown
On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 10:16:44AM -0700, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 09:50:05AM +, NeilBrown wrote: > > + - label: name for connector. If not given, device name is used. > Are extcon devices ever used standalone? If so, why? They are sometimes used for things that don't

Re: [PATCH] extcon-gpio: add devicetree support.

2013-11-04 Thread Mark Brown
On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 10:16:44AM -0700, Mark Rutland wrote: On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 09:50:05AM +, NeilBrown wrote: + - label: name for connector. If not given, device name is used. Are extcon devices ever used standalone? If so, why? They are sometimes used for things that don't

Re: [PATCH] extcon-gpio: add devicetree support.

2013-11-03 Thread Guenter Roeck
On 11/01/2013 04:33 PM, NeilBrown wrote: On Fri, 1 Nov 2013 10:16:44 -0700 Mark Rutland wrote: Hi Neil, 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

Re: [PATCH] extcon-gpio: add devicetree support.

2013-11-03 Thread Guenter Roeck
On 11/01/2013 04:33 PM, NeilBrown wrote: On Fri, 1 Nov 2013 10:16:44 -0700 Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote: Hi Neil, 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

Re: [PATCH] extcon-gpio: add devicetree support.

2013-11-02 Thread NeilBrown
On Sat, 2 Nov 2013 10:33:23 +1100 NeilBrown wrote: > On Fri, 1 Nov 2013 10:16:44 -0700 Mark Rutland wrote: > > > Hi Neil, > > > > 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. > > > >

Re: [PATCH] extcon-gpio: add devicetree support.

2013-11-02 Thread NeilBrown
On Sat, 2 Nov 2013 10:33:23 +1100 NeilBrown ne...@suse.de wrote: On Fri, 1 Nov 2013 10:16:44 -0700 Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote: Hi Neil, 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

Re: [PATCH] extcon-gpio: add devicetree support.

2013-11-01 Thread NeilBrown
On Fri, 1 Nov 2013 10:16:44 -0700 Mark Rutland wrote: > Hi Neil, > > 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 +,

Re: [PATCH] extcon-gpio: add devicetree support.

2013-11-01 Thread Mark Rutland
Hi Neil, 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. On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 09:50:05AM +, NeilBrown wrote: > > As this device is not vendor specific, I haven't included any "vendor," >

[PATCH] extcon-gpio: add devicetree support.

2013-11-01 Thread NeilBrown
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 approach. Signed-off-by: NeilBrown diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/extcon/extcon-gpio.txt

[PATCH] extcon-gpio: add devicetree support.

2013-11-01 Thread NeilBrown
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 approach. Signed-off-by: NeilBrown ne...@suse.de diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/extcon/extcon-gpio.txt

Re: [PATCH] extcon-gpio: add devicetree support.

2013-11-01 Thread Mark Rutland
Hi Neil, 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. On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 09:50:05AM +, NeilBrown wrote: As this device is not vendor specific, I haven't included any vendor,

Re: [PATCH] extcon-gpio: add devicetree support.

2013-11-01 Thread NeilBrown
On Fri, 1 Nov 2013 10:16:44 -0700 Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote: Hi Neil, 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