Hi Todor, On Tuesday 01 Nov 2016 10:24:26 Todor Tomov wrote: > On 10/26/2016 09:53 PM, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 4:21 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > >> 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. I'm fine with both solutions (and also have a slight preference for using the chip's pin name). If we decide to use "enable-gpios", the DT binding document should mention that the property corresponds to the chip's PWDNB pin. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart -- 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
