On 7/11/20 8:48 AM, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
IBM created an implementation of the PCA9552 on a PIC16F
microcontroller. Document the new compatible string for this device.
Is the implementation opensource?
Hi, no it is not.
Signed-off-by: Eddie James <eajames@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-pca955x.txt
@@ -9,6 +9,7 @@ Required properties:
"nxp,pca9550"
"nxp,pca9551"
"nxp,pca9552"
+ "nxp,pca9552-ibm"
"nxp,pca9553"
Is it good idea to use nxp prefix for something that is
software-defined and not built by nxp?
Yea I suppose not...
Would ibm,pca9552 be better, or maybe even sw,pca9552 to indicate that
is not real hardware, but software emulation?
How about ibm,pca9552-sw? Someone suggested that just adding "sw" could
be a problem if another company does the same thing but it isn't compatible.
Thanks for taking a look!
Eddie
Best regards,
Pavel
