Received: by 2002:a05:7412:3b8b:b0:fc:a2b0:25d7 with SMTP id nd11csp2485544rdb; Mon, 12 Feb 2024 06:32:06 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGI8sqmDkZ8lroWMAEwbDLJZOHorgjvxk7fgUNx8Hse05XS85TRjlr8eZaUA1tKHyLFHTTu X-Received: by 2002:ac8:5c52:0:b0:42c:7c75:b72e with SMTP id j18-20020ac85c52000000b0042c7c75b72emr2471064qtj.54.1707748325865; Mon, 12 Feb 2024 06:32:05 -0800 (PST) X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=2; AJvYcCW6aX7OAzWfND0o0n4IzL6xV9wpCZqFVauKV8M1TY/qGUlnaNSy1eeiIgrlsktyJDxqZgiancP8TPtvycNMp3D955p6zpzXGNv7kmziNw== Return-Path: Received: from ny.mirrors.kernel.org (ny.mirrors.kernel.org. [2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u2-20020ac858c2000000b0042c30f068c9si525744qta.452.2024.02.12.06.32.05 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 12 Feb 2024 06:32:05 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-61826-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=neutral (body hash did not verify) header.i=@intel.com header.s=Intel header.b=AYdgzBft; arc=fail (body hash mismatch); spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-61826-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="linux-kernel+bounces-61826-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org"; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=intel.com Received: from smtp.subspace.kernel.org (wormhole.subspace.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ny.mirrors.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9DAF61C216E1 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2024 14:32:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FE9F3A8F2; Mon, 12 Feb 2024 14:31:58 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="AYdgzBft" Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3EE75FC16; Mon, 12 Feb 2024 14:31:55 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.13 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1707748317; cv=none; b=GSKXJvQup/zOSWctbq7jPkEC3o1HWgyo11v9TYyZ11tXy6C+dVkamYzF6lzANgf5Sf4lJQ5WIzhxn/B1btrnH55ioCY4phls58418bK8D0y+ijytGTqHZMnFj45WhJiizURhMhZHezBWflFD/byv0tmSFaVshHIh6XRLfG4K/jw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1707748317; c=relaxed/simple; bh=3JKFf0dcMk7JwnUdDXS61uJeYNwcS3K7/8lxDPV9RgE=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=oeS2BSZWVoM/Ei0zqE5jBwtybW5wQOGVdI0sxb4ElrtZd+GOS+m+Qh3UJDPleLFDm9TmY2ktJcEvFsNGjVJln8vsglI35FyZAd6xOIeMUaRxnBcqLAmTUJdmFL1aHCJgDVZ1F0JYZJ4Tfyhwt+Q3UZMHnlUyh7ijs9+U6Kw0sTg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=AYdgzBft; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.13 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1707748317; x=1739284317; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=3JKFf0dcMk7JwnUdDXS61uJeYNwcS3K7/8lxDPV9RgE=; b=AYdgzBftByJ9b3K/t/7JXfNkdatGGyVw1sIZM1siuQDWHb3pydei2Nfn LnFaH7pUqe4E//WodbSEnBxDaxpUvcSUMGc8Diu8UwBsxXUzpqNi8fhMP VuE5IDgnum4RmAuU70ux9/Y8zWD6Xnw3BmFLSwksUuRmbzu3VK1okc6lk wqpc9+RBfziIUQa75+AXB8XIJMTYRUSj6U0V4uPjlOh51260b0vsemfad IOA7H5nquR1BQ0BIcel6iIHGs3TKfHrzRYDPEMPz9EfF0Mkrz/cqWnOxU VRSS0jesQUwhDUXOzXrV0Onz5QrkjRKdH1bYyImhdrwqtae8aEu2+5JNG Q==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,10981"; a="12814863" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.06,264,1705392000"; d="scan'208";a="12814863" Received: from fmsmga002.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.26]) by orvoesa105.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 12 Feb 2024 06:31:56 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,10981"; a="911497299" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.06,264,1705392000"; d="scan'208";a="911497299" Received: from smile.fi.intel.com ([10.237.72.54]) by fmsmga002.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 12 Feb 2024 06:31:52 -0800 Received: from andy by smile.fi.intel.com with local (Exim 4.97) (envelope-from ) id 1rZXLZ-00000003vFt-1yfL; Mon, 12 Feb 2024 16:31:49 +0200 Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 16:31:49 +0200 From: Andy Shevchenko To: Krzysztof Kozlowski Cc: Linus Walleij , Miguel Ojeda , Rob Herring , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Conor Dooley , Robin van der Gracht , Paul Burton , Geert Uytterhoeven , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: auxdisplay: hit,hd44780: drop redundant GPIO node Message-ID: References: <20240212083426.26757-1-krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> <906db6a6-48ba-41e5-be23-1dea0ecf96ee@linaro.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 03:20:26PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > 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. Ah, okay, so it's a semantic difference. Thank you for your patience and elaboration! -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko