On 22/02/2022 09:55, Oleksii Moisieiev wrote: > >> >> 2. Does your example work properly? Passes dt_binding_check? Reg looks >> different than unit-address. >> > dt_bindings_check passes without errors. Also I've checked this file > explicitly by using command: > yamllint -c Documentation/devicetree/bindings/.yamllint Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi-devid.yaml > > Reg value, if you mean reg parameter from an Example, was taken from > r8a77961.dtsi file. The check does not pass. You have an error there: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi-devid.example.dt.yaml: example-0: usb@ee0a0000:reg:0: [0, 3993632768, 0, 256] is too long > >> >>> >>>> 2. Your schema does is not selected by anything. How is it intended to >>>> be used? Nothing is including it, either... >>>> >>> >>> The idea is to use this parameter to set the device_id for the device in >>> the device-tree, which matches to the device mapping in the Firmware, so >>> Trusted Agent can use it to the device permissions. >>> Please see Sections 4.2.2.10 and 4.2.1 [0] (Link was provided in the >>> cover letter). >>> >>> I'm currently propose the new feature, called SCI mediator to Xen-devel >>> community. Please see link [1] from cover letter for the details. >>> In this feature - Xen is the Trusted Agent, which uses scmi_devid >>> parameter to set the device permissions. >>> We think that this parameter will be useful for other possible SCMI >>> implementations, such as other hypervisor or SCMI backend server etc. >> >> We talk about different things, I think. I was asking how is this schema >> selected? >> >> I gave it a fast try (dtbs_check) and it confirmed - schema does not >> have an effect. It's a noop. You need something like "select: true", see: >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/nvmem-consumer.yaml >> or this schema should be included by other schemas... but then I would >> be happy to see actual usage in this patchset (more commits...). >> > > I think select: true will work for me. I'll do dtbs_check and > dt_bindings_check after making all changes and prepare v2 if there will > be no further comments. > > Also what do you think about maintainers: field? Is it correct? I'm not > sure if I used it correctly. I think you should add arm,scmi maintainer next to you. Best regards, Krzysztof
