On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 01:38:05PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> 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.

Plain numbers or not doesn't change anything. The meaning of the bit has
to be defined. This has nothing to do with the symbolic name at all.

Thierry