lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Nov]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 4/5 v2] input: tc3589x-keypad: support probing from device tree
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"?


--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-11-17 20:01    [W:0.126 / U:0.392 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site