On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 11:11:19AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 07/17/2013 05:00 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > On Monday 15 July 2013 21:39:31 Stephen Warren wrote: > ... > >> But then there's a problem where people assume that the common flags are > >> always available, and somewhere they aren't... Care is needed in the > >> choice of which common flags to define and/or how they're used. > > > > Exactly. That's why I think listing the supported common flags in individual > > bindings makes sense when some of the flags are not supported by all devices. > > As the only PWM flags currently used are common to all PWM devices I can leave > > this out now. I have no strong preference, I'll follow your opinion on this. > > Yes, I guess separating the concept of defining common flags and which > devices use them is good. And then indeed individual devices need to > define which of the common flags they support. I'd still like to see the > *definition* of those common flags in some central place (i.e. pwm.txt > or a header that defines constants for it), and the other device > bindings simply reference that for the actual definitions. That sounds reasonable to me. Thierry
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
