[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231108191125.GA2754195-robh@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2023 13:11:25 -0600
From: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc: Aaro Koskinen <aaro.koskinen@....fi>,
Janusz Krzysztofik <jmkrzyszt@...il.com>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@...ethink.co.uk>,
linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
Howard Harte <hharte@...icandroidapps.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] dt-bindings: mtd: Rewrite gpio-control-nand in schema
On Wed, Nov 08, 2023 at 03:33:50PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> This creates a schema for GPIO controlled NAND. The txt
> schema was old and wrong.
>
> Mark the old way of passing GPIOs in a long array as
> deprecated and encourage per-pin GPIO assignments with
> the named nnn-gpios phandles.
We have 1 user upstream with only a single commit adding it in 2017.
This doesn't seem like something that's going to gain new users either.
Is it really worth modernizing this binding?
Rob
Powered by blists - more mailing lists