On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 11:23:36PM +0100, saravanan sekar wrote: > > > + mps,inc-off-time: > > > + description: | > > > + mutually exclusive to mps,fixed-off-time an array of 8, linearly increase > > > + output delay during power off sequence based on factor of time slot/interval > > > + for each regulator. > > > + allOf: > > > + - $ref: "/schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint8-array" > > > + - minimum: 0 > > > + - maximum: 15 > > > + - default: [ 0, 6, 0, 6, 7, 7, 7, 9 ] > > You should check the size of the array too, but if it's a property of > > the regulators, why not have it in the regulators node? > > the node regulators & sub-node of regulators are parsed (initdata) by > regulator framework during regulator registration, > so it would be redundant parsing all the node if mentioned under each > regulator node and this is optional. If you still not > convinced I will change. It's not really redundant, since the regulator framework will ignore whatever custom property you would put there, and your driver would ignore any generic property in those nodes. > > > + regulators: > > > + type: object > > > + description: > > > + list of regulators provided by this controller, must be named > > > + after their hardware counterparts BUCK[1-4], one LDORTC, and LDO[2-5] > > > + The valid names for regulators are > > > + buck1, buck2, buck3, buck4, ldortc, ldo2, ldo3, ldo4, ldo5 > > For the third times now, the names should be validated using > > propertyNames. > > Not sure did I understand your question correctly. > all the node name under regulators node are parsed by regulator > framework & validated against > name in regulator descriptors. Yes, and the point of the bindings in YAML is to make sure all the constraints we might have can be catched at compilation / validation time. The names of the nodes are a constraint, and propertyNames allows you to express it. Maxime
