On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 12:33:10AM CDT, Andrew Jeffery wrote: > > >On Fri, 9 Apr 2021, at 14:45, Zev Weiss wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 01:27:48AM CDT, Andrew Jeffery wrote: >> >Given the deprecated binding, improve the ability to detect issues in >> >the platform devicetrees. Further, a subsequent patch will introduce a >> >new interrupts property for specifying SerIRQ behaviour, so convert >> >before we do any further additions. >> > >> >Signed-off-by: Andrew Jeffery <andrew@xxxxxxxx> >> >--- >> > .../bindings/ipmi/aspeed,ast2400-kcs-bmc.yaml | 92 +++++++++++++++++++ >> > .../bindings/ipmi/aspeed-kcs-bmc.txt | 33 ------- >> > 2 files changed, 92 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-) >> > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ipmi/aspeed,ast2400-kcs-bmc.yaml >> > delete mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ipmi/aspeed-kcs-bmc.txt >> > >> >diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ipmi/aspeed,ast2400-kcs-bmc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ipmi/aspeed,ast2400-kcs-bmc.yaml >> >new file mode 100644 >> >index 000000000000..697ca575454f >> >--- /dev/null >> >+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ipmi/aspeed,ast2400-kcs-bmc.yaml >> >@@ -0,0 +1,92 @@ >> >+# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) >> >+%YAML 1.2 >> >+--- >> >+$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/ipmi/aspeed,ast2400-kcs-bmc.yaml >> >+$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml >> >+ >> >+title: ASPEED BMC KCS Devices >> >+ >> >+maintainers: >> >+ - Andrew Jeffery <andrew@xxxxxxxx> >> >+ >> >+description: | >> >+ The Aspeed BMC SoCs typically use the Keyboard-Controller-Style (KCS) >> >+ interfaces on the LPC bus for in-band IPMI communication with their host. >> >+ >> >+properties: >> >+ compatible: >> >+ oneOf: >> >+ - description: Channel ID derived from reg >> >+ items: >> >+ enum: >> >+ - aspeed,ast2400-kcs-bmc-v2 >> >+ - aspeed,ast2500-kcs-bmc-v2 >> >+ - aspeed,ast2600-kcs-bmc >> >> Should this have a "-v2" suffix? > >Well, that was kind of a matter of perspective. The 2600 compatible was >added after we'd done the v2 of the binding for the 2400 and 2500 so it >never needed correcting. But it is a case of "don't use the deprecated >properties with the 2600 compatible". > >I don't think a change is necessary? > It just looked inconsistent with the corresponding string in the ast_kcs_bmc_match[] table; perhaps that should be changed instead then? Zev
