On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 02:28:44PM +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote: > On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 12:02:41PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 15, 2020 at 02:43:42PM +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote: > > > Independent bindings can be SPI slaves which for example is > > > the case for several panel bindings. > > What is an "independent binding"? > For several panels we have device trees that looks like this: So what you're trying to do is define a generic class for SPI slaves which are just normal children of SPI nodes? I really can't get to there from your changelog so we need some work there - in particular "non-spi bindings" is *very* confusing as as far as I can see these are bindings for SPI devices. > The bindings are child of the spi controller node, but not specified > in the same binding file as the spi controller node. Of course not, this how all buses work isn't it? > So SPI slaves can now reference spi-slave.yaml to get access to > the SPI slave properties - and the copies can be avoided. > Likewise spi-controller.yml now references spi-slave.yaml. > This was the best way I saw it could be done. Rob didn't do the binding conversion but he did review it - I'm a bit surprised that there's issues here? Also shouldn't there be some constraint that these devices have to be the child of a SPI controller or something? Just including a file doesn't look right for something like class definition.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
