On 08/20/2013 12:57 AM, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 08/19/2013 04:53 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote: >> On Monday 19 of August 2013 16:30:45 Stephen Warren wrote: >>> On 08/19/2013 11:25 AM, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote: >>>> On 08/19/2013 03:25 PM, Pawel Moll wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 2013-08-19 at 14:18 +0100, Andrzej Hajda wrote: >>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/samsung-s5k5baf.txt >>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,51 @@ >>>>>> +Samsung S5K5BAF UXGA 1/5" 2M CMOS Image Sensor with embedded SoC >>>>>> ISP >>>>>> +------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> + >>>>>> +Required properties: >>>>>> + >>>>>> +- compatible : "samsung,s5k5baf"; >>>>>> +- reg : I2C slave address of the sensor; >>>>>> +- vdda-supply : analog power supply 2.8V (2.6V to 3.0V); >>>>>> +- vddreg-supply : regulator input power supply 1.8V (1.7V >>>>>> to 1.9V) + or 2.8V (2.6V to 3.0); >>>>>> +- vddio-supply : I/O power supply 1.8V (1.65V to 1.95V) >>>>>> + or 2.8V (2.5V to 3.1V); >>>>>> +- gpios : GPIOs connected to STDBYN and RSTN pins, >>>>>> + in order: STBYN, RSTN; >>>>> >>>>> You probably want to use the "[<name>-]gpios" convention here (see >>>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio.txt), so something like >>>>> stbyn-gpios and rstn-gpios. >>>> >>>> Unless using multiple named properties is really preferred over a >>>> single "gpios" property I would like to keep the single property >>>> containing a list of GPIOs. ... >>> >>> Yes, a separate property for each type of GPIO is typical. Multiple >>> entries in the same property are allowed if they're used for the same >>> purpose/type, whereas here they're clearly different things. Yes, that's a good argument. Those GPIOs are pretty unrelated. >>> Inconsistent with (some) other properties, admittedly... It might depend on which properties we consider together. >> I'm not really convinced about the superiority of named gpio properties >> over a single gpios property with multiple entries in this case. I'd say >> it's more just a matter of preference. >> >> See the clock or interrupt bindings. They all specify all the clocks and >> interrupts in single property, without any differentiation based on their >> purposes. Also keep in mind that original GPIO bindings used only a single >> "gpios" property and was only extended to allow named ones. > > Well, it's not so much about what's best, but just being consistent with > what's already there. OK, thanks a lot for clarification. We'll rework this to use separate named properties. -- Thanks, Sylwester -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
