Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 13 Feb 2012 21:58:15 -0800 | From | Mark Brown <> | Subject | Re: [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] | |