On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 07:28:45PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > > > I could find two boards using "gpio-matrix-keypad" in the mainline > > > > kernel and not a single instance of "linux,no-autorepeat": > > > > > > In things connected to GPIO, I don't expect the in-kernel > > > device trees to be a good way so survey the usage of these > > > bindings. Anyone doing device trees on any system with a > > > few GPIOs can be using this. > > > > > > But maybe we're lucky and won't break anyone's setup if > > > we change this? > > > > AFAIK Device Tree property names are considered as ABI, so existing > > property names must not be removed. > > > > But I guess we can add the standardized property name in addition > > to the deprecated one. New drivers can use the standardized property > > name from the beginning. > > > > Thus I guess we should not use the name, which has the most adopters > > in kernel (or out of kernel). Instead the most fitting name should > > be used. Current suggestions (taken from kernel) are: > > > > * <<vendor>>,no-autorepeat > > * keypad,autorepeat > > * linux,keypad-no-autorepeat > > * linux,input-no-autorepeat > > * linux,no-autorepeat > > * autorepeat > > > > I do not really care, which one is chosen, except for two things: > > > > * <<vendor>> seems wrong. This is not vendor specific. > > * I would prefer "input-" over "keypad-", since then the same name > > can be used for single keys, buttons, etc. > > Hmm, and it is not Linux-specific, either. So can we stick with simple "autorepeat"? The advantage of the negated form is, that autorepeat is enabled by default. So what do you think about input-no-autorepeat -- Sebastian
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
