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

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>]

On 12/02/2024 15:09, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> 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...

All of the bindings examples do it. It's expected.

> 
> 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?

They are not OK, although I don't see the name "hc595". There is phandle
to the hc595 label, but that's fine. Not a node name.

Best regards,
Krzysztof