From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mailout3.w1.samsung.com ([210.118.77.13]:37980 "EHLO mailout3.w1.samsung.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750757AbbEYMu5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 May 2015 08:50:57 -0400 Message-id: <55631AAC.6080507@samsung.com> Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 14:50:52 +0200 From: Jacek Anaszewski MIME-version: 1.0 To: Sylwester Nawrocki Cc: Sakari Ailus , linux-leds@vger.kernel.org, linux-media@vger.kernel.org, kyungmin.park@samsung.com, pavel@ucw.cz, cooloney@gmail.com, rpurdie@rpsys.net, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, sre@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 8/8] DT: samsung-fimc: Add examples for samsung,flash-led property References: <1432131015-22397-1-git-send-email-j.anaszewski@samsung.com> <1432131015-22397-9-git-send-email-j.anaszewski@samsung.com> <20150520220018.GE8601@valkosipuli.retiisi.org.uk> <555DA119.9030904@samsung.com> <20150521113213.GI8601@valkosipuli.retiisi.org.uk> <555DDD88.8080601@samsung.com> <20150523120348.GA3170@valkosipuli.retiisi.org.uk> <55630EE1.90307@samsung.com> In-reply-to: <55630EE1.90307@samsung.com> Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi, On 05/25/2015 02:00 PM, 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. Could you give examples of the cases you are thinking of? > 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. When it should be needed? > Similarly we could create properties for other sub-devices of a camera > module, like lenses, etc. -- Best Regards, Jacek Anaszewski