Hi Sylwester, On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 02:00:33PM +0200, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote: > Hi, > > On 23/05/15 14:03, Sakari Ailus wrote: > > On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 03:28:40PM +0200, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote: > >> flash-leds = <&flash_xx &image_sensor_x>, <...>; > > > > One more matter to consider: xenon flash devices. > > > > How about samsung,camera-flashes (and ti,camera-flashes)? After pondering > > this awhile, I'm ok with removing the vendor prefix as well. > > > > Let me know what you think. > > I thought about it a bit more and I have some doubts about semantics > as above. I'm fine with 'camera-flashes' as far as name is concerned. > > Perhaps we should put only phandles to leds or xenon flash devices > in the 'camera-flashes' property. I think it would be more future > proof in case there is more nodes needed to describe the camera flash > (or a camera module) than the above two. And phandles to corresponding > image sensor device nodes would be put in a separate property. > > camera-flashes = <&flash_xx>, ... > camera-flash-masters = <&image_sensor_x>, ... > > Then pairs at same index would describe a single flash, 0 would indicate > a null entry if needed. > Similarly we could create properties for other sub-devices of a camera > module, like lenses, etc. This arrangement would be advantageous compared to a single property when adding modules (or lenses) to the equation, and probably more future proof than "samsung,camera-flashes" / "ti,camera-flashes" I believe. I'm also ok with keeping it as-is though. -- Kind regards, Sakari Ailus e-mail: sakari.ailus@xxxxxx XMPP: sailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- 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
