Hi! > >Is this one needed? Just ommit child note if it is not there. > > It is needed because you can have one led connected two both > outputs. This allows to describe such a design. Ok. > >>+- maxim,trigger-type : Array of trigger types in order: flash, torch > >>+ Possible trigger types: > >>+ 0 - Rising edge of the signal triggers the flash/torch, > >>+ 1 - Signal level controls duration of the flash/torch. > >>+- maxim,trigger : Array of flags indicating which trigger can activate given led > >>+ in order: fled1, fled2 > >>+ Possible flag values (can be combined): > >>+ 1 - FLASH pin of the chip, > >>+ 2 - TORCH pin of the chip, > >>+ 4 - software via I2C command. > > > >Is it good idea to have bitfields like this? > > > >Make these required properties of the subnode? > > This is related to a single property: trigger. I think that splitting > it to three properties would make unnecessary noise in the > binding. Well, maybe it is not that much noise, and you'll have useful names (not a bitfield). Should these properties move to the LED subnode? Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- 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
