[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170830145829.GA22289@lunn.ch>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 16:58:29 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Baruch Siach <baruch@...s.co.il>
Cc: Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Russell King <rmk+kernel@....linux.org.uk>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] dt-binding: net: sfp binding documentation
> > > > Your example shows there's GPIO phandle *and* specifier.
> > >
> > > Would "GPIO specifier" be enough here?
> >
> > No, specifier is the cells following GPIO (or any other) phandle.
>
> So this should be "GPIO phandle and specifier of ...", is that correct?
>
> I have found very few (< 4) occurrences of this language in (lots of) '-gpios'
> property descriptions under Documentation/devicetree/bindings/. Is this a new
> requirement?
Sometimes it is just easier to refer to another document:
GPIO, as defined in Documentation/devicetree/binding/gpio/gpio.txt
Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists