Hello,

On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 06:46:51PM +0200, Clemens Gruber wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 06:27:23PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 03:27:41PM +0200, Clemens Gruber wrote:
> > > Add the flag and corresponding documentation for PWM_USAGE_POWER.
> > 
> > My concern here in the previous round was that PWM_USAGE_POWER isn't a
> > name that intuitively suggests its semantic. Do you disagree?
> 
> No. It is more abstract and requires documentation. But I also didn't
> want to waste too much time on discussing names, so I used Thierry's
> suggestion.

If you introduce API thinking about the name before actually introducing
it is a good idea in general. (OK, the name doesn't become part of the
(binary) dt API, but we don't even agree about its semantic here.)

And IMHO a bad name with a good documentation isn't good enough.
Otherwise we can better just agree on using plain numbers in the .dts
files.

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |