[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMRc=MfwQ8J7eT_geEf7Kj230SOvmO-LDHz9a_YgfRY-QB5V8w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2026 11:36:28 +0100
From: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...nel.org>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
Cc: James Hilliard <james.hilliard1@...il.com>, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>, Linus Walleij <linusw@...nel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Alexander Stein <linux@...tq-group.com>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] gpio: aggregator: add gpio-aggregator DT compatible
On Wed, Feb 11, 2026 at 11:13 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> static const struct of_device_id gpio_aggregator_dt_ids[] = {
> >> + {
> >> + .compatible = "gpio-aggregator",
> >> + },
> >> {
> >> .compatible = "gpio-delay",
> >> .data = (void *)FWD_FEATURE_DELAY,
> >> --
> >> 2.43.0
> >>
> >
> > Regardless of the DT bindings - this change is perfectly fine. We do
>
> You cannot have compatible without DT bindings, so this alone is not
> "perfectly fine". Maybe you wanted platform_device_id entry for
> ACPI/legacy/MFD devices?
>
Sure you can, you just can't put it into upstream devicetree sources.
We have had a compatible for gpio-sim for testing purposes for years.
Why would it be illegal to enable matching of platform drivers over DT
for testing purposes?
Bartosz
Powered by blists - more mailing lists