On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 11:29 PM, Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Gregor: >> So I feel like we should keep away from any temptation to define the coordinates >> system too strictly. >> I also think of systems composed of multiple hardware parts with sensors >> scattered all over them. What would be the right "device/main hardware" reference >> frame definition in these cases ? >> As this is product specific, I feel like "device/main hardware" reference frame >> definition should be left to the "board/main hardware/device..." implementor's >> choice. > > Flexible is good, but I think we should define a base rule for the chips frame > of reference and fix up any that disagree (which is nasty ABI breakage :( > Trivial choice of either right handed or left handed frame might be all we > define in general. Useful to define consistent frames for device types that > are common perhaps as well. (such as the screen ones Linus has here). Admittedly I come from the mobile phone industry. So these frames of reference is not cooked up by me, I installed the Android app "Sensors test" to test two devices relative the world, so this is the frame of reference used by all mobile phones and tablets on the planet (I hardly think iPhone deviates). I would be happy to write explicitly that for human interaction devices with screens that frame of reference should always be assumed, but for other uses and device types other frames of reference may apply, would you agree? Yours, Linus Walleij -- 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
