Hi!
> >> Also.. it would be good to start pushing for more consistency in the
> >> labels: I have these on the thinkpad:
> >>
> >> input5::scrolllock/ tpacpi::dock_status2/ tpacpi::unknown_led/
> >> mmc0::/ tpacpi:green:batt/tpacpi::unknown_led2/
> >> phy0-led/ tpac
cc devicet...@vger.kernel.org
On 12/14/2017 10:35 PM, Jacek Anaszewski wrote:
> On 12/11/2017 05:27 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 4:43 AM, Pavel Machek wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>
Label property was imposed a uniqueness requirement, which was erroneous,
since ePAPR defines it
On 12/11/2017 05:27 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 4:43 AM, Pavel Machek wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>>> Label property was imposed a uniqueness requirement, which was erroneous,
>>> since ePAPR defines it to "a human readable string describing a device".
>
> But it still needs to be unique
On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 4:43 AM, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> Label property was imposed a uniqueness requirement, which was erroneous,
>> since ePAPR defines it to "a human readable string describing a device".
But it still needs to be unique to be useful. It's just unique from a
different pers
Jacek
On 12/02/2017 03:50 PM, Jacek Anaszewski wrote:
> Label property was imposed a uniqueness requirement, which was erroneous,
> since ePAPR defines it to "a human readable string describing a device".
>
> Also the binding description misleadingly suggested direct usage of label
> for LED clas
Hi Pavel,
On 12/04/2017 11:43 AM, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> Label property was imposed a uniqueness requirement, which was erroneous,
>> since ePAPR defines it to "a human readable string describing a device".
>>
>> Also the binding description misleadingly suggested direct usage of label
>>
Hi!
> Label property was imposed a uniqueness requirement, which was erroneous,
> since ePAPR defines it to "a human readable string describing a device".
>
> Also the binding description misleadingly suggested direct usage of label
> for LED class device name, whereas it should only define a LED
Label property was imposed a uniqueness requirement, which was erroneous,
since ePAPR defines it to "a human readable string describing a device".
Also the binding description misleadingly suggested direct usage of label
for LED class device name, whereas it should only define a LED function.
The
8 matches
Mail list logo
