[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <906db6a6-48ba-41e5-be23-1dea0ecf96ee@linaro.org>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 14:56:43 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, Miguel Ojeda
<ojeda@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Robin van der Gracht
<robin@...tonic.nl>, Paul Burton <paulburton@...nel.org>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: auxdisplay: hit,hd44780: drop redundant
GPIO node
On 12/02/2024 14:39, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 09:34:24AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> Examples of other nodes, like GPIO controller, are redundant and not
>> really needed in device bindings.
>
> ...
>
>> - 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?
> 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?
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists