On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 03:21:23PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote: > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 10:17:45PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 09:56:29PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > On Fri 2015-05-29 14:49:55, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 09:32:11PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > > Fix dts to match what the Linux kernel expects. This works around > > > > > touchscreen problems in 4.1 linux on Nokia n900. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/touchscreen/tsc2005.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/touchscreen/tsc2005.txt > > > > > index 4b641c7..09089a6 100644 > > > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/touchscreen/tsc2005.txt > > > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/touchscreen/tsc2005.txt > > > > > @@ -32,8 +32,8 @@ Example: > > > > > touchscreen-fuzz-x = <4>; > > > > > touchscreen-fuzz-y = <7>; > > > > > touchscreen-fuzz-pressure = <2>; > > > > > - touchscreen-max-x = <4096>; > > > > > - touchscreen-max-y = <4096>; > > > > > + touchscreen-size-x = <4096>; > > > > > + touchscreen-size-y = <4096>; > > > > > > > > IMHO, the older binding needs to be supported as well. It's fine to > > > > update the DTS for the new binding, but even Documentation says > > > > touchscreen-max-[xy] and if the driver changed that, the driver should > > > > be fixed too. Besides, it seems like this has been in tree since > > > > v3.16: > > > > > > Agreed. In parent email, I have list of two commits that should be > > > reverted. > > > > So, if we sums things up. You introduce in some documentation example > > some property, that you never document, that you still use in one > > it was Documented in DT bindings document for this particular driver. > What are you talking about ? It was documented in "example", not in the documentation that says: - properties defined in touchscreen.txt which says nothing about touchscreen-max-x. And _noone_ has ever parsed this property, so adding support for it does not make any sense. > > > single DT, you don't even use that property in your driver, and now > > that you realise you meant something else, you want the code that > > not Pali, Sebastian. > > > actually parse the *right* property and does the right thing, that all > > other DT agree (and depend on) to be reverted? > > We shouldn't revert, that I agree. But both properties should be parsed. No. If the property is wrong, and nobody parsed it, I do not see any reason to start now. -- Dmitry -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
