Re: [PATCH v2 01/13] Documentation: add extcon devicetree bindings

[Mark Brown]

On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 03:19:59PM +0200, Robert Baldyga wrote:
> On 04/22/2014 09:51 PM, Mark Brown wrote:

> >>  .../devicetree/bindings/extcon/extcon-adc-jack.txt |   60 +++++++++++++++++++
> >>  .../devicetree/bindings/extcon/extcon-arizona.txt  |   47 +++++++++++++++
> >>  .../devicetree/bindings/extcon/extcon-bindings.txt |   36 +++++++++++
> >>  .../devicetree/bindings/extcon/extcon-gpio.txt     |   63 ++++++++++++++++++++
> >>  .../devicetree/bindings/extcon/extcon-max14577.txt |   49 +++++++++++++++
> >>  .../devicetree/bindings/extcon/extcon-max77693.txt |   56 +++++++++++++++++
> >>  .../devicetree/bindings/extcon/extcon-max8997.txt  |   49 +++++++++++++++
> >>  .../devicetree/bindings/extcon/extcon-palmas.txt   |   37 ++++++++++--

> > This is creating device tree bindings for MFD components as devices when
> > those MFD components aren't well isolated from the rest of the device.
> > If we need to add extcon bindings the device should have the flexibility
> > to decide where to add the properties, and really things should be set
> > up so there's less duplication in the documentation.

> Those components has their own addresses on i2c bus, so they are,
> technically, separate devices, and they can (should?) be described by
> separate nodes. And I think it doesn't matter if they are grouped in one
> chip.

That's definitely not true for the arizona devices, I haven't
specifically checked for any of the others.  It's all one device and the
isolation isn't particularly solid.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature