On 09/24/2013 02:08 AM, Srinivas KANDAGATLA wrote: > Thanks Stephen, > On 23/09/13 21:40, Stephen Warren wrote: >> On 09/19/2013 02:59 AM, Srinivas KANDAGATLA wrote: >>> This patch adds support to ST RC driver, which is basically a IR/UHF >>> receiver and transmitter. This IP (IRB) is common across all the ST >>> parts for settop box platforms. IRB is embedded in ST COMMS IP block. >>> It supports both Rx & Tx functionality. >>> >>> In this driver adds only Rx functionality via LIRC codec. >> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/st-rc.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/st-rc.txt >>> + - rx-mode: can be "infrared" or "uhf". rx-mode should be present iff the >>> + rx pins are wired up. >>> + - tx-mode: should be "infrared". tx-mode should be present iff the tx >>> + pins are wired up. >> >> Should those property names be prefixed with "st,"; I assume they're >> specific to this binding rather than something generic that applies to >> all IR controller bindings? If you expect them to be generic, it's fine. > > Officially these bindings are not specified in ePAPR specs Well, there are plenty of properties we now consider generic that aren't in ePAPR... > but I see no reason for not having these properties as generic ones. > > Are you ok with that? I suppose that infrared-vs-uhf is a concept that's probably common enough across any similar HW device, so it may make sense for these properties to be generic. If we do intend them to be generic, I'd suggest they be defined in some generic binding document though; perhaps something like bindings/media/ir.txt or bindings/media/remote-control.txt? That way, a HW-specific binding isn't the only place where a supposedly generic property is defined. -- 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
