On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 11:57:53AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 6:16 PM Andy Shevchenko > <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 07:14:53PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: ... > > +description: > > + The Maxim MAX6958/6959 7-segment LED display controller provides > > + an I2C interface to up to four 7-segment LED digits. The MAX6959 > > + in comparison to MAX6958 has the debounce and interrupt support. > > IUIC, the primary differentiating factor is that the MAX6959 adds input > and GPIO support? Debounce and interrupt support are merely features > of input support. What should I do here? Rephrase? > > + Type of the chip can be autodetected via specific register read, > > + and hence the features may be enabled in the driver at run-time. > > I don't think you need to read that register, as the users of the > features (keypad mapping, interrupts property, ...) also need to be > described in DTS (once supported). So, the idea that if DT describes those we will check the chip ID and instantiate what is asked? > > + Given hardware is simple and does not provide any additional pins, > > + such as reset or enable. > > Does this matter? I.e. is it important to say this in the bindings? >From Krzysztof's review of v1 I understood that it is important to say so people wouldn't wonder if HW has support of that which is not implemented (yet) or simply has no such pins. Personally I would lean towards leaving this in the description. ... Can you propose the full description text how you see it? -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
