On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 03:20:26PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> 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.
Ah, okay, so it's a semantic difference. Thank you for your patience and elaboration!
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
