On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 01:38:05PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > Hello, > > On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 06:46:51PM +0200, Clemens Gruber wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 06:27:23PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 03:27:41PM +0200, Clemens Gruber wrote: > > > > Add the flag and corresponding documentation for PWM_USAGE_POWER. > > > > > > My concern here in the previous round was that PWM_USAGE_POWER isn't a > > > name that intuitively suggests its semantic. Do you disagree? > > > > No. It is more abstract and requires documentation. But I also didn't > > want to waste too much time on discussing names, so I used Thierry's > > suggestion. > > If you introduce API thinking about the name before actually introducing > it is a good idea in general. (OK, the name doesn't become part of the > (binary) dt API, but we don't even agree about its semantic here.) > > And IMHO a bad name with a good documentation isn't good enough. > Otherwise we can better just agree on using plain numbers in the .dts > files. Plain numbers or not doesn't change anything. The meaning of the bit has to be defined. This has nothing to do with the symbolic name at all. Thierry
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
