Hi Stephen, On 24/09/13 20:49, Stephen Warren wrote: >>> >> Should those property names be prefixed with "st,"; I assume they're >>> >> specific to this binding rather than something generic that applies to >>> >> all IR controller bindings? If you expect them to be generic, it's fine. >> > >> > Officially these bindings are not specified in ePAPR specs > Well, there are plenty of properties we now consider generic that aren't > in ePAPR... > >> > but I see no reason for not having these properties as generic ones. >> > >> > Are you ok with that? > I suppose that infrared-vs-uhf is a concept that's probably common > enough across any similar HW device, so it may make sense for these > properties to be generic. If we do intend them to be generic, I'd > suggest they be defined in some generic binding document though; perhaps > something like bindings/media/ir.txt or > bindings/media/remote-control.txt? That way, a HW-specific binding isn't > the only place where a supposedly generic property is defined. For now I will send a v5 for this driver with these generic properties. And, I will send an separate RFC for the generic binding document (bindings/media/remote-control.txt) so that we can get more inputs from others as well. Thanks, srini > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
