Re: [PATCH 4/5 v2] input: tc3589x-keypad: support probing from device tree

[Sebastian Reichel <sre-GFxCN5SEZAc@public.gmane.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1742 bytes --]

On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 07:28:45PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> > > > I could find two boards using "gpio-matrix-keypad" in the mainline
> > > > kernel and not a single instance of "linux,no-autorepeat":
> > > 
> > > In things connected to GPIO, I don't expect the in-kernel
> > > device trees to be a good way so survey the usage of these
> > > bindings. Anyone doing device trees on any system with a
> > > few GPIOs can be using this.
> > > 
> > > But maybe we're lucky and won't break anyone's setup if
> > > we change this?
> > 
> > AFAIK Device Tree property names are considered as ABI, so existing
> > property names must not be removed.
> > 
> > But I guess we can add the standardized property name in addition
> > to the deprecated one. New drivers can use the standardized property
> > name from the beginning.
> > 
> > Thus I guess we should not use the name, which has the most adopters
> > in kernel (or out of kernel). Instead the most fitting name should
> > be used. Current suggestions (taken from kernel) are:
> > 
> > * <<vendor>>,no-autorepeat
> > * keypad,autorepeat
> > * linux,keypad-no-autorepeat
> > * linux,input-no-autorepeat
> > * linux,no-autorepeat
> > * autorepeat
> > 
> > I do not really care, which one is chosen, except for two things:
> > 
> > * <<vendor>> seems wrong. This is not vendor specific.
> > * I would prefer "input-" over "keypad-", since then the same name
> >   can be used for single keys, buttons, etc.
> 
> Hmm, and it is not Linux-specific, either. So can we stick with simple "autorepeat"?

The advantage of the negated form is, that autorepeat is enabled by
default. So what do you think about

input-no-autorepeat

-- Sebastian

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]