[lkml]   [2017]   [Mar]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v1] Revert "extcon: usb-gpio: add support for ACPI gpio interface"

On 03/24/2017 07:47 PM, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
> Hi Lu Baolu,
> On 2017년 03월 24일 20:24, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Fri, 2017-03-24 at 20:03 +0900, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
>>> On 2017년 03월 22일 22:09, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 2017-03-22 at 10:14 +0900, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
>>>>> On 2017년 03월 22일 03:37, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>>>>> The commit 942c7924a51e introduced a check for ACPI handle for
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> device that never appears on any ACPI-enabled platform so far.
>>>>>> It
>>>>>> seems
>>>>>> a confusion with extcon-intel-int3496 which does support ACPI-
>>>>>> enabled
>>>>>> platforms.
>>>>> Only for the reason that there is no any usecase until now,
>>>>> and remove the confusion between extcon-usb-gpio and extcon-intel-
>>>>> int3496.
>>>>> Should we revert it?
>>>>> I think that both extcon-usb-gpio and extcon-intel-int3496
>>>>> driver are not same operation perfectly. Also, the filename
>>>>> of extcon-intel-int3496 has specific name. Instead, extcon-usb-
>>>>> gpio.c
>>>>> is more common device driver.
>>>>> Can the extcon-intel-int3496.c support the everything on acpi
>>>>> side?
>>>> For my understanding we have the only driver for now for USB mux in
>>>> the
>>>> kernel for ACPI-enabled platforms.
>>>> Besides confusion, it makes harder to fix a real bugs in at least
>>>> GPIO
>>>> ACPI library since we need to amend any user of it first. While
>>>> confusion is here, I can't do anything to not possible break the
>>>> functionality of the driver in a real use case if any (I doubt there
>>>> is
>>>> any in this particular case).
>>>> So, my opinion here is "yes, we should revert it until we have a
>>>> confirmation that there is a product which is using this among with
>>>> ACPI" (which I doubt ever exists).
>>> Because you told me there was not any use case of extcon-usb-gpioc.c
>>> on acpi side. But, I think that it is not enough as the reason.
>>> Because I already mentioned,
>>> 1.
>>> "The both extcon-usb-gpio and extcon-intel-int3496 driver
>>> are not same operation perfectly." It two driver are same operation
>>> and there is no use case on acpi side, I may agree your suggestion.
>>> But, in this case, they are different between two drivers.
>>> 2.
>>> Also, extcon-intel-int3496 has the specific name 'int3496'.
>>> I think that it only depends on the specific device driver on acpi
>>> side.
>>> I don't think it cover all of use case on acpi side.
>> Just one question: is there *real* existing device where ACPI table
>> contains something related to extcon-usb-gpio?
>> I'm pretty sure the answer is no. Moreover, Lu pointed me out to the
>> series which tried to update the driver in question to support int3496.
>> Though it comes as a separate driver, thus that series was abandoned
>> IIUC.
>> I really don't care if some dead confusing code will be left in some
>> poor driver, at the end it's not my call.
>> P.S. We already spent enough time making a mountain out of a molehill. I
>> rest my case.
> OK. Just I want to receive the reply from Lu Baolu.
> In the "extcon-usb-gpio ACPI support" mail thread,
> I understood that Lu Baolu said that the related patches were abandoned.
> To Lu Baolu,
> Don't you ever use the extcon-usb-gpio.c in the future on acpi side?
> If you agree it, I'll revert it.

I will not use extcon-usb-gpio.c in the future on acpi side AFAICS.

Best regards,
Lu Baolu

 \ /
  Last update: 2017-03-27 02:53    [W:0.039 / U:2.616 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site