[AMD Official Use Only - General] Hi Sunbo, > -----Original Message----- > From: Sungbo Eo <mans0n@xxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2022 7:31 PM > To: Datta, Shubhrajyoti <shubhrajyoti.datta@xxxxxxx> > Cc: linux-gpio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; git (AMD-Xilinx) <git@xxxxxxx>; > devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; > robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; brgl@xxxxxxxx; linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx; Andy > Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] gpio: pca9570: add slg7xl45106 support > > Caution: This message originated from an External Source. Use proper > caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding. > > > Hi, > > Thanks for the update. > I was thinking I should reply to your patch in the last month, but I was a little > busy at the time and I forgot to do so... > > On 2022-09-15 20:48, Shubhrajyoti Datta wrote: > > slg7xl45106 is a I2C GPO expander. > > Add a compatible string for the same. Also update the driver to write > > and read from it. > > > > Signed-off-by: Shubhrajyoti Datta <shubhrajyoti.datta@xxxxxxx> > > --- > > v2: > > Use platform data insted of compatible > > Moving the command property into the new platform structure is nice. > And please add more description about the device in the commit message. > We don't even know the full name of the vendor from your patch. > I like the older version of your patch in that perspective. > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flore. > kernel.org%2Fall%2F1656426829-1008-3-git-send-email- > shubhrajyoti.datta%40xilinx.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cshubhrajyoti.d > atta%40amd.com%7C9758241b75fc461113b608da98b50869%7C3dd8961fe488 > 4e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637990201003357055%7CUnknown%7 > CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwi > LCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=x0RHFhr9X0L3VBzTRyRy > VfLhm74gx7jBqUs2NEFhKcI%3D&reserved=0 > And a link to the device datasheet would be also nice (if possible). > Will update the description. > > > > drivers/gpio/gpio-pca9570.c | 39 > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---- > > 1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > And I was also thinking that tpic2810 driver might be more appropriate then > this pca9570 driver for a device with one command byte. > Actually I had forked tpic2810 to create pca9570 to support a device without > any command byte. > Come to think of it, the two drivers may even be consolidated into a single > generic one... What do you think? I agree. It looks to me that the current driver should work for the tpic2810 also by adding the compatible. Do you agree? > > Thanks, > Sungbo
