> > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/armada-385-turris-omnia.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/armada-385-turris-omnia.dts
> > > > index f4878df39753..f655e9229d68 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/armada-385-turris-omnia.dts
> > > > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/armada-385-turris-omnia.dts
> > > > @@ -184,7 +184,13 @@
> > > > #size-cells = <0>;
> > > > reg = <0>;
> > > >
> > > > - /* STM32F0 command interface at address 0x2a */
> > > > + /* MCU command i2c API */
> > > > + mcu: mcu@2a {
> > > > + compatible = "cznic,turris-omnia-mcu";
> > > > + reg = <0x2a>;
> > > > + gpio-controller;
> > > > + #gpio-cells = <3>;
> > > > + };
> >
> > Please document the binding, preferably in yaml.
> >
> > I'm also not sure what the DT people will say about the node name mcu.
> > I don't see any examples of that in the binding documentation. They
> > might request you rename it to gpio-controller, unless it does more
> > than GPIO? And if it does do more than GPIO we are then into mfd
> > territory, and the binding then becomes much more interesting. Then we
> > start the questions, are you defining a ABI now, before there is even
> > a driver for it?
>
> Most probably mfd territory. It is at least a gpio-controller,
> reset-controller and watchdog.
O.K.
Then i suggest we wait for the actual drivers before committing any
DT. The binding will need revier, and could change.
Andrew
