On Thu, 27 Jun 2019, at 23:40, Rob Herring wrote: > On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 6:44 PM Andrew Jeffery <andrew@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, 26 Jun 2019, at 23:17, Rob Herring wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 1:21 AM Andrew Jeffery <andrew@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > Convert ASPEED pinctrl bindings to DT schema format using json-schema > > > > > > BTW, ASPEED is one of the remaining platforms needing the top-level > > > board bindings converted. > > > > Okay, I'll put together patches to fix that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Jeffery <andrew@xxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > .../pinctrl/aspeed,ast2400-pinctrl.txt | 80 ------------------- > > > > .../pinctrl/aspeed,ast2400-pinctrl.yaml | 73 +++++++++++++++++ > > > > 2 files changed, 73 insertions(+), 80 deletions(-) > > > > delete mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/aspeed,ast2400-pinctrl.txt > > > > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/aspeed,ast2400-pinctrl.yaml > > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/aspeed,ast2400-pinctrl.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/aspeed,ast2400-pinctrl.yaml > > > > new file mode 100644 > > > > index 000000000000..3b8cf3e51506 > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/aspeed,ast2400-pinctrl.yaml > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,73 @@ > > > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ > > > > > > Do you have rights to change the license? > > > > Where are you coming from with this question? The bindings previously didn't list a > > license, is there some implicit license for them? I would have thought it was GPL-2.0? > > Yes, it is implicitly GPL-2.0 since it is in the kernel tree and has > no other license text. > > > IBM's (my employer's) preferred contribution license is GPL 2.0-or-later, so I was just > > adding the SPDX marker to clarify. > > Adding 'or-later' is a licensing change. If IBM is the copyright > holder on all this file, then that is fine. I authored the file for IBM and they hold the copyright, so the change is permitted. > > > > If so, the preference is to > > > dual license with (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause). > > > > You're asking if I have the power to relicense so I can dual license it this way? > > It would probably be up to your company. If that's an issue, then not > dual licensing is fine. I don't want to hold things up on that. Okay. I've asked and the query is being resolved internally. I'm not sure when that will occur though, so I'll relicense it in a future patch if the request gets the go ahead. Just for the record, what's the motivation for the dual license? Understanding why will likely help resolve the request. > > [...] > > > > > +required: > > > > + - compatible > > > > + > > > > +description: |+ > > > > > > description goes before properties. > > > > Okay. I wouldn't have thought the ordering mattered. Is this just a preference? > > Yes, just a preference. > > > The tools seemed to run fine as is. > > > > I'll re-order it regardless. > > > > > > > > > + The pin controller node should be the child of a syscon node with the > > > > + required property: > > > > + > > > > + - compatible: Should be one of the following: > > > > + "aspeed,ast2400-scu", "syscon", "simple-mfd" > > > > + "aspeed,g4-scu", "syscon", "simple-mfd" > > > > + > > > > + Refer to the the bindings described in > > > > + Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/syscon.txt > > > > + > > > > + For the AST2400 pinmux, each mux function has only one associated pin group. > > > > + Each group is named by its function. The following values for the function > > > > + and groups properties are supported: > > > > + > > > > + ACPI ADC0 ADC1 ADC10 ADC11 ADC12 ADC13 ADC14 ADC15 ADC2 ADC3 ADC4 ADC5 ADC6 > > > > + ADC7 ADC8 ADC9 BMCINT DDCCLK DDCDAT EXTRST FLACK FLBUSY FLWP GPID GPID0 GPID2 > > > > + GPID4 GPID6 GPIE0 GPIE2 GPIE4 GPIE6 I2C10 I2C11 I2C12 I2C13 I2C14 I2C3 I2C4 > > > > + I2C5 I2C6 I2C7 I2C8 I2C9 LPCPD LPCPME LPCRST LPCSMI MAC1LINK MAC2LINK MDIO1 > > > > + MDIO2 NCTS1 NCTS2 NCTS3 NCTS4 NDCD1 NDCD2 NDCD3 NDCD4 NDSR1 NDSR2 NDSR3 NDSR4 > > > > + NDTR1 NDTR2 NDTR3 NDTR4 NDTS4 NRI1 NRI2 NRI3 NRI4 NRTS1 NRTS2 NRTS3 OSCCLK > > > > + PWM0 PWM1 PWM2 PWM3 PWM4 PWM5 PWM6 PWM7 RGMII1 RGMII2 RMII1 RMII2 ROM16 ROM8 > > > > + ROMCS1 ROMCS2 ROMCS3 ROMCS4 RXD1 RXD2 RXD3 RXD4 SALT1 SALT2 SALT3 SALT4 SD1 > > > > + SD2 SGPMCK SGPMI SGPMLD SGPMO SGPSCK SGPSI0 SGPSI1 SGPSLD SIOONCTRL SIOPBI > > > > + SIOPBO SIOPWREQ SIOPWRGD SIOS3 SIOS5 SIOSCI SPI1 SPI1DEBUG SPI1PASSTHRU > > > > + SPICS1 TIMER3 TIMER4 TIMER5 TIMER6 TIMER7 TIMER8 TXD1 TXD2 TXD3 TXD4 UART6 > > > > + USB11D1 USB11H2 USB2D1 USB2H1 USBCKI VGABIOS_ROM VGAHS VGAVS VPI18 VPI24 > > > > + VPI30 VPO12 VPO24 WDTRST1 WDTRST2 > > > > > > This should be a schema. > > > > Yeah, I covered this in my cover letter. I was hoping to get away without > > that for the moment as this seems like the first pinctrl binding to be > > converted, however if you insist... > > That generally doesn't matter. You can assume common properties will > have a schema and you don't need to define common constraints (like > 'function' is a string array). You only need what is specific to this > binding which is possible values. Right, it just wasn't clear to me how much effort was involved. Having hacked around a bit now I've found it's not so much. Thanks for your feedback. Andrew
