linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: auxdisplay: hit,hd44780: drop redundant GPIO node

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <b836cf9d-dc71-4835-b45f-1092aafa1dfd@linaro.org>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 15:20:26 +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 15:09, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> 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...

All of the bindings examples do it. It's expected.

> 
> 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?

They are not OK, although I don't see the name "hc595". There is phandle
to the hc595 label, but that's fine. Not a node name.

Best regards,
Krzysztof