On Wed, 08 Dec 2021, Alexandre TORGUE wrote: > Hi Ahmad > > On 12/7/21 2:59 PM, Ahmad Fatoum wrote: > > Hello Alex, > > > > On 07.12.21 14:52, Alexandre TORGUE wrote: > > > Hi Rob > > > > > > On 12/1/21 11:34 PM, Rob Herring wrote: > > > > On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 11:25:27AM +0100, Olivier MOYSAN wrote: > > > > > Hi Rob, > > > > > > > > > > On 11/25/21 10:26 PM, Rob Herring wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 25 Nov 2021 15:40:50 +0100, Olivier Moysan wrote: > > > > > > > The STM2 I2S DAI can be connected via the audio-graph-card. > > > > > > > Add port entry into the bindings. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Olivier Moysan <olivier.moysan@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/st,stm32-i2s.yaml | 5 +++++ > > > > > > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Running 'make dtbs_check' with the schema in this patch gives the > > > > > > following warnings. Consider if they are expected or the schema is > > > > > > incorrect. These may not be new warnings. > > > > > > > > > > > > Note that it is not yet a requirement to have 0 warnings for dtbs_check. > > > > > > This will change in the future. > > > > > > > > > > > > Full log is available here: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1559750 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > audio-controller@4000b000: 'port' does not match any of the regexes: '^port@[0-9]', 'pinctrl-[0-9]+' > > > > > > arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157a-dk1.dt.yaml > > > > > > arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157c-dk2.dt.yaml > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This warning is not a new one. > > > > > > > > > > The i2s2 node in stm32mp15xx-dkx.dtsi would require the following binding: > > > > > port: > > > > > $ref: audio-graph-port.yaml# > > > > > unevaluatedProperties: false > > > > > > > > > > However the spi binding requires to introduce a unit address: > > > > > patternProperties: > > > > > '^port@[0-9]': > > > > > $ref: audio-graph-port.yaml# > > > > > unevaluatedProperties: false > > > > > > > > > > The warning can be removed by re-ordering the bindings patches in the serie, > > > > > as "additionalProperties: true" makes the check more tolerant on extra > > > > > properties. > > > > > > > > That's never right. > > > > > > > > > The patch "ASoC: dt-bindings: stm32: i2s: add audio-graph-card port" can > > > > > even be merely dropped. > > > > > So, I suggest to resend the serie without audio-graph-card patch. > > > > > > > > Only if you aren't using audio-graph-card. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does it sound too permissive to you ? > > > > > > > > I think perhaps you need to combine the schemas into 1. Or you need to > > > > restructure your dtsi files such that you only add spi specific > > > > properties when spi mode is enabled and only add i2s specific properties > > > > when i2s mode is enabled. Or use the /delete-property/ directive. > > > > > > Initially the aim of this series was to fix a "make W=1" warnings seen on spi and i2s nodes (duplicate unit-address). Moving both nodes in a common node + using a different compatible depending on SPI or I2S usage sounded good) but it is not enough. In this series the common node is named as following: "spi2s2: spi@4000b000". It is fine for a spi usage but if we want to use this "common node" with I2S compatible and specific bindings, the node name remains spi@... and then specific spi checks are done. For this with this series applied we got this issue reported by spi-controller.yaml: > > > > > > spi@4000b000: port@0: 'compatible' is a required property > > > > > > So, if we use two separates nodes we got W=1 warning and if we use a common node we got yaml check issue. One possibility would be to use a common node with a new node name (for example i2spi@...) but I think it is not acceptable. > > > > > > How to progress ? > > > > Atmel Flexcom can be configured to be either UART, SPI or i2c. Functions > > are child nodes of the flexcom node and the MFD driver matching against it, > > just configure the operating mode and then calls of_platform_populate. > > > > Would something along these lines fit here as well? > > Yes it could but in my mind it was not a MFD as both feature cannot be used > at the same time: it is either SPI or I2S and choice is done "statically" in > device tree depending board usage. > > Lee, what it is your feeling about that ? Will you accept to add a MFD > driver for this SPI/I2S peripheral whose prurpose is only to populate child > node (either SPI or I2S) ? >From your description, this doesn't sound like a good fit for MFD. -- Lee Jones [李琼斯] Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
