lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Feb]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 5/5] Extcon: adc-jack driver to support 3.5 pi or simliar devices
    On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 11:22:14AM +0900, MyungJoo Ham wrote:
    > On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 1:25 AM, Mark Brown
    > <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> wrote:
    > > On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 03:40:38PM +0900, MyungJoo Ham wrote:
    > >> External connector devices that decides connection information based on
    > >> ADC values may use adc-jack device driver. The user simply needs to
    > >> provide a table of adc range and connection states. Then, extcon
    > >> framework will automatically notify others.

    > > This really should be done in terms of the IIO in-kernel framework.

    > The ADC part may be done in IIO. However, the intention of this device
    > driver is to provide extcon interface to any ADC drivers, not
    > providing an ADC device driver. If we are going to implement this in

    Right, exactly.

    > the ADC driver in IIO, we will need to write the given code in every
    > ADC driver used for analog ports.

    No, that's not what I'm suggesting - what I'm suggesting is that rather
    than having a callback for implementing the ADC read functionality this
    should work as an in-kernel IIO driver so it'll just automatically work
    with any ADC without needing code to hook things up. Unless I've not
    understood your comment fully.

    > >> +     /* Check the length of array and set num_cables */
    > >> +     for (i = 0; data->edev.supported_cable[i]; i++)
    > >> +             ;
    > >> +     if (i == 0 || i > SUPPORTED_CABLE_MAX) {

    > > Can we not avoid the hard limit?

    > Without that limit, we won't be able to easily express binary cable
    > status (u32) with the extcon framework. At least, we will need to
    > forget about setting the status with u32 values.

    > Anyway, I can remove the checking SUPPORT_CABLE_MAX part at probe.

    It might be clearer to make the limit more obviously associated with
    the bitmask - it looks like it's an array thing the way the code is
    written but a limit due to using a bitmask seems reasonable.
    [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2012-02-14 07:01    [W:3.589 / U:0.012 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site