[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200720222503.GA3058862@bogus>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 16:25:03 -0600
From: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To: Eddie James <eajames@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, linux-leds@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
dmurphy@...com, jacek.anaszewski@...il.com, vishwa@...ux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: leds: pca955x: Add IBM implementation
compatible string
On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 09:28:32AM -0500, Eddie James wrote:
>
> On 7/11/20 8:48 AM, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > > IBM created an implementation of the PCA9552 on a PIC16F
> > > microcontroller. Document the new compatible string for this device.
> > Is the implementation opensource?
>
>
> Hi, no it is not.
>
>
> >
> > > Signed-off-by: Eddie James <eajames@...ux.ibm.com>
> > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-pca955x.txt
> > > @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@ Required properties:
> > > "nxp,pca9550"
> > > "nxp,pca9551"
> > > "nxp,pca9552"
> > > + "nxp,pca9552-ibm"
> > > "nxp,pca9553"
> > Is it good idea to use nxp prefix for something that is
> > software-defined and not built by nxp?
>
>
> Yea I suppose not...
>
> >
> > Would ibm,pca9552 be better, or maybe even sw,pca9552 to indicate that
> > is not real hardware, but software emulation?
>
>
> How about ibm,pca9552-sw? Someone suggested that just adding "sw" could be a
> problem if another company does the same thing but it isn't compatible.
ibm,pca9552 is good.
Rob
Powered by blists - more mailing lists