From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andy Shevchenko Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers: gpio: pca953x: add compatibility for pcal6524 and pcal9555a Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 18:56:16 +0200 Message-ID: References: <49f6922ba342cf69bfd2a787d0c2a93b4df2c429.1520664883.git.hns@goldelico.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <49f6922ba342cf69bfd2a787d0c2a93b4df2c429.1520664883.git.hns@goldelico.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "H. Nikolaus Schaller" Cc: Rob Herring , Pawel Moll , Mark Rutland , Ian Campbell , Kumar Gala , Linus Walleij , Alexandre Courbot , devicetree , "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , letux-kernel@openphoenux.org, kernel@pyra-handheld.com List-Id: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 1:00 PM, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote: > The Pyra-Handheld originally used the tca6424 but recently we have > replaced it by the pin and package compatible pcal6524. So let's > add this to the bindings and the driver. > > And while we are at it, the pcal9555a does not have a compatible entry > either but is already supported by the device id table. > + { "pcal6524", 24 | PCA953X_TYPE | PCA_INT | PCA_PCAL, }, > { "pcal9555a", 16 | PCA953X_TYPE | PCA_INT | PCA_PCAL, }, So, from your description I can get that PCA_PCAL is redundant for 6524. Is it correct? What does L means in the model code? Perhaps we need to rename PCA_PCAL to be more specific? > + { .compatible = "nxp,pcal6524", .data = OF_953X(24, PCA_INT), }, > + { .compatible = "nxp,pcal9555a", .data = OF_953X(16, PCA_INT), }, Other way around, you missed PCA_PCAL in the second case. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko