Re: [PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: auxdisplay: hit,hd44780: drop redundant GPIO node

[Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>]

On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 02:56:43PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 12/02/2024 14:39, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 09:34:24AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

...

> >> -    i2c {
> >> -            #address-cells = <1>;
> >> -            #size-cells = <0>;
> >>  
> >> -            pcf8574: pcf8574@27 {
> >> -                    compatible = "nxp,pcf8574";
> >> -                    reg = <0x27>;
> >> -                    gpio-controller;
> >> -                    #gpio-cells = <2>;
> >> -            };
> >> -    };
> > 
> > In patch 3 you updated the lines that have lost their sense due to this one.
> 
> How did they lose it?

Now they are referring to the non-existed node in the example. OTOH, there is
already hc595 case...

The Q here (as you pointed out that it's better to name nodes in generic way),
how these names are okay with the schema (hc595, pcf8574) as being referred to?

...

> > And I agree with others, please leave this example in place.
> 
> What for? Why this binding is special and 99% of others do not need GPIO
> expander in the example?

Some people already tried to explain you their point of view, but I see that:
- the unrelated nodes in the schemas are not welcome (as per your talks
  and documentation);
- the current file has other references that have no existing node in the
  example;
- you are DT maintainer, so I believe you know this better.

With this, I'm almost (see above question though) satisfied with the series.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko