Hi Josh, On 22/12/14 11:32, Josh Wu wrote: >>> +Required Properties: >>> >> +- compatible: Must be "ovti,ov2640" >> > I believe it is preferred to put it as "Should contain", rather than >> > "Must be". > > I don't have a strong opinion here. After check many documents, it seems > many people use "Should be". > Is it okay? That's probably slightly better. In general, the point is that the 'compatible' property could potentially contain multiple values, e.g. when there is introduced a common more generic compatible value for a set of sensors. However your documentation now says that only one specific value is allowed. I'm adding Mark at Cc, perhaps he can explain it better. Please don't consider it as an objection from my side, since we now have mixture of "must be", "should be", "should contain", etc. across the DT binding documentation files. -- Regards, Sylwester -- 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
