From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mailout4.w1.samsung.com ([210.118.77.14]:46216 "EHLO mailout4.w1.samsung.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751126AbbEYO2f (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 May 2015 10:28:35 -0400 Message-id: <55633186.1000004@samsung.com> Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 16:28:22 +0200 From: Sylwester Nawrocki MIME-version: 1.0 To: Jacek Anaszewski 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> <55631AAC.6080507@samsung.com> In-reply-to: <55631AAC.6080507@samsung.com> Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 25/05/15 14:50, Jacek Anaszewski wrote: >> 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? I don't have any examples in mind ATM, I just wanted to point out the above convention might not be flexible enough. Especially since we already know there is more sub-devices within the camera module than just flashes and image sensors. >> > 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? Not sure if there is a real use case for null entries, it was just to note we can skip any entry if needed - probably an irrelevant comment. I could imagine 2 LEDs of which one is only triggered in software, so it wouldn't have a 'camera-flash-masters' entry. >> > Similarly we could create properties for other sub-devices of a camera >> > module, like lenses, etc. -- Regards, Sylwester