On 12/02/2024 15:09, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> 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...
All of the bindings examples do it. It's expected.
>
> 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?
They are not OK, although I don't see the name "hc595". There is phandle
to the hc595 label, but that's fine. Not a node name.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
