Hi! > IBM created an implementation of the PCA9552 on a PIC16F > microcontroller. Document the new compatible string for this device. Is the implementation opensource? > Signed-off-by: Eddie James <eajames@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-pca955x.txt > @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@ Required properties: > "nxp,pca9550" > "nxp,pca9551" > "nxp,pca9552" > + "nxp,pca9552-ibm" > "nxp,pca9553" Is it good idea to use nxp prefix for something that is software-defined and not built by nxp? Would ibm,pca9552 be better, or maybe even sw,pca9552 to indicate that is not real hardware, but software emulation? Best regards, Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
