> I can submit that soon, but it probably makes sense for Wolfram to > voice whatever his concerns were about "questionable" properties before > I document what's there. Please don't feel offended. The things I noticed are: a) no documentation b) 'polarity' is a direct mapping to the register which IMO is a hint to look closer. I haven't checked in detil, but maybe the active_low-flag could be used for this? I mainly got alarmed that properties were mainlined without being reviewed; as the device-tree is based on convention (which is hard to change afterwards), I try to make sure this will not so easily happen again (thus the get_maintainer-patch on lkml). Regards, Wolfram -- Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
