On 26/07/12 15:28, Mark Brown wrote:
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 03:00:17PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
On 26/07/12 12:50, Mark Brown wrote:
Yet again no binding documentation....
RFC. ;)
I'll write the documentation when/if the properties are accepted.
No, write the documentation. It's way too much effort to reverse engineer the bindings from the code.
default :codec->ear_cmv = EAR_CMV_UNKNOWN;dev_err(dev, "Unsuitable earpiece voltage found in DT\n");The platform data code picks a default, can't the DT code do the same?
No, I don't think that it does? The original code returns -EINVAL unless a value is specified.
The code doesn't specify values for the enumeration so it ought to default to EAR_CMV_0_95V if nothing is specified.
Ah, I see what you mean. I guess we could compromise and print a warning _and_ fall back to the 0th original emum.
The original author is keen to have a clear error message in case users try to specify non-exact values. I'd rather we fail-out than use incorrect values which would be a great deal harder for a user to debug.
By that argument all the properties should be mandatory but it's only this one IIRC.
This is the only value which the user can pick an obscure value, such as 913, thinking they can pick 913mV. I'm happy to fall-back, as long as Ola is too.