On mardi 26 novembre 2024 19:09:43 heure normale d’Europe centrale Conor Dooley wrote: > On Tue, Nov 26, 2024 at 09:05:42AM +0100, Romain Gantois wrote: > > Hello Conor, ... > > > > But then again, you could consider that DT bindings should only describe > > what is possible, and not only what makes sense as a use case. I don't > > really know how to answer this question myself, so I'll refer to the > > maintainers' opinions. > I don't really know what how this device works, which is why I am asking > questions. If there is no use case were someone would only wire up one > of the downstream ports then making both required is fine. I was just > thinking that someone might only hook devices up to one side of it and > leave the other unused entirely. Seemed like it could serve its role > without both sides being used based on the diagram in > https://docs.kernel.org/i2c/i2c-address-translators.html > unless it is not possible for the atr to share the "parent" i2c bus with > other devices? It is possible for the FPC202 to share it's parent bus with other devices. And I guess you could wire up only one port and use the component as a simple address translator and GPIO aggregator. So indeed, requiring both ports to be described seems unnecessary. Thanks, -- Romain Gantois, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
