On Tue, Jan 13, 2026 at 04:31:33PM +0000, Stafford Horne wrote: > On Tue, Jan 13, 2026 at 05:20:28PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 13, 2026 at 5:15 PM Stafford Horne <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Add a device tree binding for the opencores GPIO controller. > > > > > > On FPGA Development boards with GPIOs the OpenRISC architecture uses the > > > opencores gpio verilog rtl which is compatible with the MMIO GPIO driver. > > > > > > Link: https://opencores.org/projects/gpio > > > Signed-off-by: Stafford Horne <[email protected]> > > > Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <[email protected]> > > > Reviewed-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]> > > > --- > > > Since v3: > > > - Removed example. > > > - Re-order this patch to be before adding compatible string to driver as > > > per > > > device tree binding patch rules. > > > - Add Reviewed-by's. > > > Since v2: > > > - Fixup (replace) patch to simply add opencores,gpio and add an example. > > > (It was incorrect to specifying opencores,gpio with brcm,bcm6345-gpio > > > as opencores,gpio is not the same hardware, its 8-bit vs 32-bit) > > > Since v1: > > > - Fix schema to actually match the example. > > > > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-mmio.yaml | 1 + > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-mmio.yaml > > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-mmio.yaml > > > index ee5d5d25ae82..a8823ca65e78 100644 > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-mmio.yaml > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-mmio.yaml > > > @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@ properties: > > > - ni,169445-nand-gpio > > > - wd,mbl-gpio # Western Digital MyBook Live memory-mapped GPIO > > > controller > > > - intel,ixp4xx-expansion-bus-mmio-gpio > > > + - opencores,gpio > > > > > > big-endian: true > > > > > > -- > > > 2.51.0 > > > > > > > This is not a follow-up patch. Please rebase your fix on top of > > linux-next. I already have the previous patch in my tree and will not > > be rebasing the entire for-next branch. > > OK, understood, I wasn't aware you would not rebase. I will rework this > rebasing > on linux-next reberting my previous dt-binding: patch first.
No, you need to rebase, not revert. Best regards, Krzysztof
