Hi Pavel,
On 12/01/2014 02:02 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
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).
I think we'd need an opinion of at least one more person :)
Should these properties move to the LED subnode?
I would leave them device specific.
Regards,
Jacek
--
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
