On Fri, Oct 01, 2021 at 12:37:54PM -0500, Li Yang wrote: > On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 8:24 AM Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 7:04 PM Li Yang <leoyang.li@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > When the binding was converted from txt to yaml, it actually added more > > > constrains than the original txt binding which was already used in many > > > in-tree DTSes. Some of the newly added constrains are either not valid > > > or not neccessary. > > > > IMO, both of these should be fixed in the dts files. > > > > > Not all SoCs use ipg as the clock name for i2c. There is no point in > > > having SoC integration information defined in i2c binding. Remove the > > > clock name requirement in the schema. > > > > Any name you want is not fine. Your choices are remove clock-names, > > add all the names used, or change everyone to use 'ipg'. > > I understand that the name should be important as clocks are > referenced by name. But since the i2c controller only has one clock , > the name is never referenced in the driver. Then just remove 'clock-names' from the dts file. > If we really want to define the name, IMO, it should be from the > perspective of the i2c controller like "clkin" or "i2c" instead of the > "ipg" from the perspective of SoC integration which could be changing > with a different integration. I can list both "i2c" and "ipg" for now > as a workaround though. $modulename for $foo-names always looks made up and pointless to me. > > > > > > The original txt binding didn't require the order of tx and rx for > > > dmas/dma-names. Many in tree DTSes are already using the other order. > > > Both orders should just work fine. Update the schema to allow both. > > > > Doesn't sound like a case where defining the order is challenging. > > No, it is not challenging. But as dma channel is only referenced by > name instead of index. I don't see too much benefit in enforcing the > order other than easier to create the schema. Easier is nice, and that's the 'DT way' is the other reason. Rob
