On Sun, Dec 10, 2023 at 01:47:17PM +0000, Biju Das wrote:
> Convert the da9062 PMIC device tree binding documentation to json-schema.
>
> Document the missing gpio child node for da9062.
>
> While at it, update description with link to product information and
> example.
>
> The missing child node with of_compatible defined in MFD_CELL_OF is
> causing the below warning message:
> da9062-gpio: Failed to locate of_node [id: -1]
>
> So, make all child nodes with of_compatible defined in struct mfd_cell
> as required property for da906{1,2} devices.
> + gpio-controller: true
> +
> + "#gpio-cells":
> + const: 2
> +
> + gpio:
> + type: object
> + additionalProperties: false
> + properties:
> + compatible:
> + const: dlg,da9062-gpio
> + - |
> + #include <dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/irq.h>
> + #include <dt-bindings/regulator/dlg,da9063-regulator.h>
> + i2c {
> + #address-cells = <1>;
> + #size-cells = <0>;
> + pmic@58 {
> + compatible = "dlg,da9062";
> + reg = <0x58>;
> + gpio-controller;
> + #gpio-cells = <2>;
> + gpio {
> + compatible = "dlg,da9062-gpio";
> + };
I know you had some conversation with Krzysztof, but I still don;t
really follow this. Why is the parent, rather than the child, the one
that gets the "gpio-controller" and "#gpio-cells" properties? The commit
message just mentions why missing child node was added, but not the
reason for the gpio properties being added at what appears to be the
"wrong" level.
Cheers,
Conor.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
