Re: [PATCH v1 14/15] dt-bindings: auxdisplay: Add Maxim MAX6958/6959

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

On Fri, Feb 09, 2024 at 09:02:44AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 08/02/2024 19:48, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > Add initial device tree documentation for Maxim MAX6958/6959.

...

> Please describe the device, e.g. bus/interface.

OK.

...

> > +properties:
> > +  compatible:
> > +    const: maxim,max6959
> 
> Your title said also max6958, so I would expect it to be here as well.
> Cam be followed by 6959 fallback compatible, if they are compatible.

Same question as I asked before, why should we have them separated?
The hardware features can be autodetected. What's the reason for (unneeded
in my opinion and duplicative) compatible?

...

> > +  reg:
> > +    maxItems: 1
> 
> No power supplies? No reset pins?

No power supplies, no reset pins. At least there is no as such in
the datasheet. Do you see them there?

...

> > +examples:
> > +  - |
> > +    i2c {
> > +            #address-cells = <1>;
> 
> Use 4 spaces for example indentation. 2 is also fine.

Sure. Btw, this is copy&pasted from the existing YAML. Are you going to
fix them?

> > +            #size-cells = <0>;
> > +
> > +            max6959: max6959@38 {
> 
> Node names should be generic. See also an explanation and list of

(Same remark: it's a pattern from the existing code. Are you going to fix
 that?)

> examples (not exhaustive) in DT specification:
> https://devicetree-specification.readthedocs.io/en/latest/chapter2-devicetree-basics.html#generic-names-recommendation
> e.g. display-controller or display

Sure, thanks for review!

> > +                    compatible = "maxim,max6959";
> > +                    reg = <0x38>;
> > +            };
> > +      };

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko