Em Fri, 27 Sep 2013 14:26:12 +0100
Srinivas KANDAGATLA <srinivas.kandagatla@xxxxxx> escreveu:
> On 27/09/13 12:34, Mark Rutland wrote:
>
> >> > + - rx-mode: Can be "infrared" or "uhf". rx-mode should be present iff
> >> > + the rx pins are wired up.
> > I'm unsure on this. What if the device has multiple receivers that can
> > be independently configured? What if it supports something other than
> > "infrared" or "uhf"? What if a device can only be wired up as
> > "infrared"?
> >
> > I'm not sure how generic these are, though we should certainly encourage
> > bindings that can be described this way to be described in the same way.
> >
> >> > + - tx-mode: Can be "infrared" or "uhf". tx-mode should be present iff
> >> > + the tx pins are wired up.
> > I have similar concerns here to those for the rx-mode property.
> >
> Initially rx-mode and tx-mode sounded like more generic properties
> that's the reason I ended up in this route. But after this discussion it
> looks like its not really generic enough to cater all the use cases.
>
> It make sense for me to perfix "st," for these properties in the st-rc
> driver rather than considering them as generic properties.
Well, for sure the direction (TX, RX, both) is a generic property.
I'd say that the level 1 protocol (IR, UHF, Bluetooth, ...) is also a
generic property. Most remotes are IR, but there are some that are
bluetooth, and your hardware is using UHF.
Btw, we're even thinking on mapping HDMI-CEC remote controller RX/TX via
the RC subsystem. So, another L1 protocol would be "hdmi-cec".
Yet, it seems unlikely that the very same remote controller IP would use
a different protocol for RX and TX, while sharing the same registers.
So, for example, a hardware with "hdmi-cec" and "infrared" will actually
have two remote controller devices. Eventually, the "infrared" being
just RX, while "hdmi-cec" being bi-directional.
So, IMHO, this could be mapped as "l1_protocol" ("infrared", "uhf", ...)
and another one "direction" ("rx", "tx", "bi-directional").
>
> > I think what we actually need to document is the process of creating a
> > binding in such a way as to encourage uniformity. Something like the
> > following steps:
> I agree, It will help.. :-)
> >
> > 1. Look to see if a binding already exists. If so, use it.
> >
> > 2. Is there a binding for a compatible device? If so, use/extend it.
> >
> > 3. Is there a binding for a similar (but incompatible) device? Use it as
> > a template, possibly factor out portions into a class binding if
> > those portions are truly general.
> >
> > 4. Is there a binding for the class of device? If so, build around that,
> > possibly extending it.
> >
> > 5. If there's nothing relevant, create a binding aiming for as much
> > commonality as possible with other devices of that class that may
> > have bindings later.
>
> Thanks for this little guide...
>
> --srini
--
Cheers,
Mauro
--
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
