> On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 06:55:09PM +0100, Denis Carikli wrote:
> [...]
> > +Optional properties:
> > + - default-state: The initial state of the backlight.
> > + Valid values are "on", "off", and "keep".
> > + The "keep" setting will keep the backlight at whatever its current
> > + state is, without producing a glitch. The default is keep if this
> > + property is not present.
>
> I'm not sure if "on", "off" and "keep" are a good choice for this
> binding. Having strings for these tristate values seems suboptimal.
> Other bindings have chosen a representation that, transposed to this
> use-case, would read something like this:
>
> - default-state: The initial state of the backlight. Valid
> values:
> - 0: off
> - 1: on
>
> If the "default-state" property is not present, the default
> will be to keep the current backlight state.
>
> Which is in fact the exact behaviour that your binding describes, but
> it's much more intuitive in my opinion.
Why we cannot use GPIO bindings for active level here?
What a reason for "keep" state? Can this be an additional property?
---
��.n��������+%������w��{.n����z�{��ܨ}���Ơz�j:+v�����w����ޙ��&�)ߡ�a����z�ޗ���ݢj��w�f
