Hi,
On 2025. 01. 10. 14:00, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@xxxxxxxxxx>
There were other suggested solutions (for instance: just use the
existing compatible for the On Semi variant) but I figured the most
common approach is to use a fallback value for 100% compatible models
and this is what Rob suggested as well.
This reverts the driver change and makes the "onnn,74hc595a" compatible
use "fairchild,74hc595" as fallback.
Is there any reason to introduce a new compatible name at all? Does some
pre-existing, widely-used DT blob use it in the wild already? If not,
then I don't think it's necessary; for any new boards, their DT's
authors should just use the pre-existing names.
I'm especially against introducing a new, vendor-specific (On Semi, in
this case) name; if we really want to introduce a new compatible, at
least make it as generic as possible, i.e. `generic,74x595`, or even
`generic,spi-shift-register-output`.
Bartosz Golaszewski (2):
Revert "gpio: 74x164: Add On Semi MC74HC595A compat"
dt-bindings: gpio: fairchild,74hc595: use a fallback for Semi
MC74HC595A
.../devicetree/bindings/gpio/fairchild,74hc595.yaml | 10 ++++++----
drivers/gpio/gpio-74x164.c | 2 --
2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
Bence
