On 10/26/2016 09:53 PM, Rob Herring wrote: > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 4:21 AM, Laurent Pinchart > <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hi Todor, >> >> On Wednesday 19 Oct 2016 12:14:55 Todor Tomov wrote: >>> On 10/19/2016 11:49 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote: >>>> On Friday 14 Oct 2016 15:01:08 Todor Tomov wrote: >>>>> On 09/08/2016 03:22 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote: >>>>>> On Thursday 08 Sep 2016 12:13:54 Todor Tomov wrote: >>>>>>> Add the document for ov5645 device tree binding. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Todor Tomov <todor.tomov@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> .../devicetree/bindings/media/i2c/ov5645.txt | 52 ++++++++++++++ >>>>>>> 1 file changed, 52 insertions(+) >>>>>>> create mode 100644 >>>>>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/i2c/ov5645.txt >>>>>>> >>>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/i2c/ov5645.txt >>>>>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/i2c/ov5645.txt new file mode >>>>>>> 100644 >>>>>>> index 0000000..bcf6dba >>>>>>> --- /dev/null >>>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/i2c/ov5645.txt >>>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,52 @@ >>>>>>> +* Omnivision 1/4-Inch 5Mp CMOS Digital Image Sensor >>>>>>> + >>>>>>> +The Omnivision OV5645 is a 1/4-Inch CMOS active pixel digital image >>>>>>> sensor with >>>>>>> +an active array size of 2592H x 1944V. It is programmable through a >>>>>>> serial I2C >>>>>>> +interface. >>>>>>> + >>>>>>> +Required Properties: >>>>>>> +- compatible: Value should be "ovti,ov5645". >>>>>>> +- clocks: Reference to the xclk clock. >>>>>>> +- clock-names: Should be "xclk". >>>>>>> +- clock-frequency: Frequency of the xclk clock. >>>>>>> +- enable-gpios: Chip enable GPIO. Polarity is GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH. >>>> >>>> By the way, isn't the pin called pwdnb and isn't it active low ? >>> >>> Yes, the pin is called "pwdnb" and is active low (must be up for power to be >>> up). I have changed the name to "enable" as it is more generally used - >>> this change was suggested by Rob Herring. As the logic switches with this >>> change of the name I have stated it is active high which ends up in the >>> same condition (enable must be up for the power to be up). I think this is >>> correct, isn't it? >> >> I thought that the rule was to name the GPIO properties based on the name of >> the pin. I could be wrong though. Rob, what's your opinion ? > > Generally, yes that is the rule. However, an enable (or powerdown > being the inverse) pin is so common that I think it makes sense to use > a common name. Then generic power sequencing code can power up devices > (in the simple cases at least). Ok, so what can we decide about this case? I personally have a slight preference for the name same as documentation. But I think most important is to follow the rule if we have such a rule. If we don't have a single rule to follow every time then it is not really important which one we will choose. > > Rob > -- Best regards, Todor Tomov -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
