Hi Krzysztof ,
>On 26/10/2024 17:02, Tarang Raval wrote:
>> Hi Krzysztof , Himanshu
>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> + i2c {
>>>>
>>>> Keep one complete example for i2c and one for spi. This was not in
>>>> previous patch and change log does not explain why you need three
>>>> examples.
>>>
>>> Okay, I will drop one example of I2C
>>
>> In ex1: use when you only need basic GPIO and interrupt capabilities
>> without additional pin control and in ex2: use when you need pull-up
>> resistors on specific GPIO pins or a reset line.
>>
>> Original bindings state that this node can be implemented in two
>> different ways, so we should maintain both examples for reference.
>
>Example is not the binding. If you claim conversion is incomplete, it
>must be done through the binding, not example.
Understood, thanks for the clarification
>> But it's up to you, I trust your expertise on this, Krzysztof
>>
>>>>> + #address-cells = <1>;
>>>>> + #size-cells = <0>;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + mcp23017: gpio@21 {
>>>>
>>>> Drop unused label
>>>
>>> May I know how its unused, AFAIK, Since it's an I/O expanded, it’s referenced elsewhere, so keeping it is necessary for >functionality.
>>
>> I agree with Himanshu.
>> It's definitely used for reset GPIOs, LED pins, or something similar.
>
>So point to the specific line in this file. Really, it's no different
>than every other binding. If it is different, provide some arguments why
>this is different.
okay, I get your point
Best Regards,
Tarang
