Hi Sebastian,
I did wait for the 4.9-rc1 merge window to be closed until I bring up this patch
set again.

> Am 30.09.2016 um 16:40 schrieb H. Nikolaus Schaller <h...@goldelico.com>:
>> I do agree with Rob, that the ti,min/max-x/y should become common,
>> though. Also I would do s/minimum value/minimum raw value/g.
> Yes, that is a good idea!
> To me it seems as if "minimum-raw-value-x", "maximum-raw-value-y" could be 
> good.
> Or is the string too long (then we can drop the "-value" or the "imum")? It
> might blow up the DTB and string constant for finding the property?
> If we come to some consensus on this, I can update the patch set.

Now when updating the patch set, I found that using ti,min/max-x/y was not 
a new invention. It is already upstream for a while for the ads7846/2046 driver!

This means: by introducing these properties to the tsc2007 as well we just 
extend the
already defined use of ti,min/max-x/y.

Simply changing that as well to use some minimum-raw-value-x etc. would break 
boards not in mainline or need ugly code to handle property alias names.

And since they are raw data and quite chip-specific, I think there is no urgent 
for harmonization of raw device data. While using the common bindings for output
scaling and fuzz, swap etc. is very important and helpful for board designers.

So I would prefer if we can keep it as is for the moment. And make property name
harmonization and evolution a separate task and discussion.

I will submit v4 in a couple of minutes. It contains some other small fixes as
suggested by the previous discussion.

BR and thanks,

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Reply via email to