On Sun, Aug 17, 2025 at 09:23:09AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 13/08/2025 05:00, Gregory Fuchedgi wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 12:20 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>> + shutdown-gpios:
> >> powerdown-gpios, see gpio-consumer-common.yaml
> > It is called shutdown in the datasheet, but seems like neither powerdown nor
> > shutdown truly reflects its purpose. This pin doesn't power down the controller
> > itself. It shuts down the ports while keeping the controller available for
> > configuration over i2c. Should I call it ti,ports-shutdown-gpios or maybe
> > ti,shutdown-gpios? Any other suggestions?
>
>
> Feels more like enable-gpios.
>
> >
> >>> +patternProperties:
> >>> + "^port@[0-3]$":
> >> This goes to ports property.
> > Do you mean I should add another DT node that groups all ports? such as:
> > compatible = "ti,tps23861"; ports { port@0 {...} port@1 {...} }
>
>
> Yes.
Except this is not an OF graph. Don't re-use it when it is not that.
Maybe 'poe-port@'? Is multiple ports/channels something common on PoE
chips? I'd guess so. If so, then come up with something common.
Whether you should have a container node like 'ports' is a separate
question. You get exactly 1 address space for any given node. So if you
ever might need to address multiple disjoint things, then you probably
want a container node.
Rob
