On Fri, 5 Oct 2012, Hans Verkuil wrote:
On Fri October 5 2012 11:43:27 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
On Wed, 3 Oct 2012, Rob Herring wrote:
On 10/02/2012 09:33 AM, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
Hi Rob
On Tue, 2 Oct 2012, Rob Herring wrote:
On 09/27/2012 09:07 AM, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
[snip]
+Optional link properties: +- remote: phandle to the other endpoint link DT node.
This name is a little vague. Perhaps "endpoint" would be better.
"endpoint" can also refer to something local like in USB case. Maybe rather the description of the "remote" property should be improved?
remote-endpoint?
Sorry, I really don't want to pull in yet another term here. We've got ports and links already, now you're proposing to also use "endpoind." Until now everyone was happy with "remote," any more opinions on this?
Actually, when I was reviewing the patch series today I got confused as well by 'remote'. What about 'remote-link'?
Yes, I was thinking about this one too, it looks a bit clumsy, but it does make it clearer, what is meant.
And v4l2_of_get_remote() can be renamed to v4l2_of_get_remote_link() which I think is a lot clearer.
The text can be improved as well since this:
- remote: phandle to the other endpoint link DT node.
is a bit vague. How about:
- remote-link: phandle to the remote end of this link.
Looks good to me.
Thanks Guennadi --- Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D. Freelance Open-Source Software Developer http://www.open-technology.de/