> > How would both bindings existing simultaneously be interpreted? Maybe > > both existing simultaneously should be considered as an invalid > > configuration, so that it would be enough to just check the one you > > need? The other option would be to treat both existing similarly to > > neither existing, which would require the driver to always check both > > if checking one. > > I am clearly for saying that this is an illegal combination. I'd hope > this can be expressed in a YAML binding. Yet, my research didn't give me > an answer. Adding Rob and DT list to CC. Question is: > > Can we check if the boolean bindings "multi-master" and "single-master" > are not applied at the same time? Any other combination is okay, i.e. > just one of them or none of them. It seems we have not had any replies by now, but it would be nice to get this thing moving forward, even though we have this current version of patch already applied and working in our kernel branch and are not therefore really in hurry in that regard. The changes required to this patch at XIIC driver from suggested DT changes are pretty minor. Basically only checking a different property, reversing logic and some naming changes. I can make these changes already for the driver if this solution is what will be chosen, or would you prefer to still think about this? Regarding the device tree changes: I am not very familiar with the needed documentation changes, YAML bindings or what needs to be done for new bindings in general. Would you prefer to still consider them and/or get these subsystem level bindings done by someone more familiar with them? Another option would be for me to try find time to do the suggested bindings changes anyway, but it will likely require some effort from me to familiarize with device tree bindings changes and schedule the time for it. Best regards, Jaakko
