On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 03:29:49PM +0900, Tomasz Figa wrote: > On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 11:27 PM Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx> 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". > > FWIW, Android and Chrome OS call those "user-facing" and > "world-facing" respectively. Isn't that equivalent to what Jacopo is proposing though ? If we define the orientation of the device relatively to its user (e.g. for all cellphone devices the front is defined as the side facing the user), and the location of the camera relative to the device, we get the same information. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart
