Hi! > IBM created an implementation of the PCA9552 on a PIC16F > microcontroller. Document the new compatible string for this device.
Is the implementation opensource?
> Signed-off-by: Eddie James <eaja...@linux.ibm.com>
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-pca955x.txt
> @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@ Required properties:
> "nxp,pca9550"
> "nxp,pca9551"
> "nxp,pca9552"
> + "nxp,pca9552-ibm"
> "nxp,pca9553"
Is it good idea to use nxp prefix for something that is
software-defined and not built by nxp?
Would ibm,pca9552 be better, or maybe even sw,pca9552 to indicate that
is not real hardware, but software emulation?
Best regards,
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures)
http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
