Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-61805-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 16:09:18 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
	Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
	Robin van der Gracht <robin@protonic.nl>,
	Paul Burton <paulburton@kernel.org>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
	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: <Zcomjp9oH9VfO3NA@smile.fi.intel.com>
References: <20240212083426.26757-1-krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
 <ZcofhWb8stiddmru@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <906db6a6-48ba-41e5-be23-1dea0ecf96ee@linaro.org>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <906db6a6-48ba-41e5-be23-1dea0ecf96ee@linaro.org>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo

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...

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?

..

> > 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?

Some people already tried to explain you their point of view, but I see that:
- the unrelated nodes in the schemas are not welcome (as per your talks
  and documentation);
- the current file has other references that have no existing node in the
  example;
- you are DT maintainer, so I believe you know this better.

With this, I'm almost (see above question though) satisfied with the series.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko