Hi,
On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 02:30:53PM +0000, Jun Li wrote:
> > > + child = of_get_child_by_name(tcpci->dev->of_node, "connector");
> > > + if (!child) {
> > > + dev_err(tcpci->dev, "failed to get connector node.\n");
> > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > + }
> >
> > Why do you need separate child node for the connector? You will always
> > have only one connector per tcpc, i.e. the tcpci already represents the
> > connector and all its capabilities.
> >
> This is my original idea, my understanding is Rob expects those properties
> should
> apply for a common usb connector node[1], that way I need add a child node
> for it,
> sorry I didn't make the dt-binding patches come first in this series, please
> see
> patch 10,11.
>
> [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10231447/
But was the idea really to put properties like the TCPC capabilities
under the usb connector child node? That will force us to extract
the same properties in two different methods in every USB Type-C
driver. One extracting them from DT, and another from other FW
interfaces and build-in properties.
To avoid that, let's just expect to get these properties in the node
for tcpc, not the usb connector child.
Thanks,
--
heikki
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
