Hi Pavel, On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 04:27:17PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > > I'm skeptical about adding now a property for a device that we don't > > > support, because we -now- think it's a good idea. I might be wrong, > > > but my assumption is that when someone will want to support an > > > 'advanced' device, it's easy to add "movable" or whatever else to the > > > list of accepted properties values. Am I wrong in assuming this? As > > > long as "front" "back" and "external" will stay supported for backward > > > DTB compatibility it should be fine, right ? > > > > The basic rule is that you should not define things unless you KNOW that > > they will be needed. So when we actually see new devices for which > > "front", "back" or "external" does not fit, then new names can be > > created. > > > It's impossible to cover all situations since we can't predict the future. > > The best we can do is to allow for future extensions. > > Those devices are already being sold, and yes, they are running linux > (with some patches probably). > > I believe it would be better to specify "this camera is selfie -- > takes pictures of the user" vs. "this is main camera -- takes pictures > of what user is looking at". The intended usage of a component is something that really does not belong to DT. The install location is a physical property of the device, what the user is supposed to do with it is not. I would be very uncomfortable to have anything like "selfie" in DT bindings. > > Best regards, > > Pavel > -- > (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek > (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
