On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 11:55:36AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 07:50:49PM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 11:45:02AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 11:29:02AM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 03:19:32PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > > > The controller is using non-standard "reset-n-io" name for its reset > > > > > gpio property, whereas gpiod API expects "<name>-gpios". Add a quirk > > > > > so that gpiod API will still work on unmodified DTSes. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > How/when has/will the DT bindings documentation for this hardware be > > > > updated to describe the new bindings? > > > > > > > > Delivering the quirks ahead of driver updates is great for avoiding > > > > merge conflicts but it also conceals the rename from reviewers so > > > > risks neglecting to update the bindings. > > > > > > I was planning on sending binding updates once driver patches land. > > > > I'd have a (weak) preference for them being shared in the same patchset. > > Maintainers can either ack or the changes can land seperately but > > having them in the same patchset helps avoid having to quibble or check! > > OK, so how about once we agree and land this patchset to gpiolib I can > blast driver patches + binding patches together? That's good for me! Daniel.