[lkml]   [2012]   [Feb]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
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
> <> 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:0.062 / U:32.152 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site