On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 6:07 AM Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenzjulienne@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Alvaro, > > On Tue, 2021-02-23 at 18:00 +0100, Álvaro Fernández Rojas wrote: > > Some devices may need to perform a reset before using the RNG, such as the > > BCM6368. > > > > Signed-off-by: Álvaro Fernández Rojas <noltari@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > v3: make resets required if brcm,bcm6368-rng. > > v2: document reset support. > > > > .../devicetree/bindings/rng/brcm,bcm2835.yaml | 17 +++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rng/brcm,bcm2835.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rng/brcm,bcm2835.yaml > > index c147900f9041..11c23e1f6988 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rng/brcm,bcm2835.yaml > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rng/brcm,bcm2835.yaml > > @@ -37,6 +37,21 @@ required: > > > > > > additionalProperties: false > > I can't claim I fully understand all the meta stuff in shemas, so I generally > just follow the patterns already available out there. That said, shoudln't this > be at the end, just before the examples? Maybe the cause of that odd warning > you got there? Yes, 'resets' needs to be defined under 'properties' as additionalProperties can't 'see' into if/then schemas. The top level needs to define everything and then if/then schema just add additional constraints. > > > +if: > > + properties: > > + compatible: > > + enum: > > + - brcm,bcm6368-rng > > +then: > > + properties: > > + resets: > > + maxItems: 1 > > + required: > > + - resets > > I belive you can't really make a property required when the bindings for > 'brcm,bcm6368-rng' were already defined. This will break the schema for those > otherwise correct devicetrees. Right, unless not having the property meant the device never would have worked. Rob
