Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 12 Feb 2024 16:09:18 +0200 | From | Andy Shevchenko <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: auxdisplay: hit,hd44780: drop redundant GPIO node |
| |
On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 02:56:43PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 12/02/2024 14:39, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 09:34:24AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
..
> >> - i2c { > >> - #address-cells = <1>; > >> - #size-cells = <0>; > >> > >> - pcf8574: pcf8574@27 { > >> - compatible = "nxp,pcf8574"; > >> - reg = <0x27>; > >> - gpio-controller; > >> - #gpio-cells = <2>; > >> - }; > >> - }; > > > > In patch 3 you updated the lines that have lost their sense due to this one. > > How did they lose it?
Now they are referring to the non-existed node in the example. OTOH, there is already hc595 case...
The Q here (as you pointed out that it's better to name nodes in generic way), how these names are okay with the schema (hc595, pcf8574) as being referred to?
..
> > And I agree with others, please leave this example in place. > > What for? Why this binding is special and 99% of others do not need GPIO > expander in the example?
Some people already tried to explain you their point of view, but I see that: - the unrelated nodes in the schemas are not welcome (as per your talks and documentation); - the current file has other references that have no existing node in the example; - you are DT maintainer, so I believe you know this better.
With this, I'm almost (see above question though) satisfied with the series.
-- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
| |