Le Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 07:04:43PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski a écrit : > On 21/03/2022 21:07, Corentin Labbe wrote: > > Convert rockchip-crypto to yaml > > > > Signed-off-by: Corentin Labbe <clabbe@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > .../crypto/rockchip,rk3288-crypto.yaml | 84 +++++++++++++++++++ > > .../bindings/crypto/rockchip-crypto.txt | 28 ------- > > 2 files changed, 84 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-) > > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/crypto/rockchip,rk3288-crypto.yaml > > delete mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/crypto/rockchip-crypto.txt > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/crypto/rockchip,rk3288-crypto.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/crypto/rockchip,rk3288-crypto.yaml > > new file mode 100644 > > index 000000000000..a6be89a1c890 > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/crypto/rockchip,rk3288-crypto.yaml > > @@ -0,0 +1,84 @@ > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) > > +%YAML 1.2 > > +--- > > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/crypto/rockchip,rk3288-crypto.yaml# > > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# > > + > > +title: Rockchip Electronics And Security Accelerator > > + > > +maintainers: > > + - Heiko Stuebner <heiko@xxxxxxxxx> > > + > > +properties: > > + compatible: > > + enum: > > + - rockchip,rk3288-crypto > > + - rockchip,rk3328-crypto > > + - rockchip,rk3399-crypto > > Waaaait, what? Only rockchip,rk3288-crypto is in original bindings. Hello Yes, my way is an error. Next time, I will split my patch in 2, first a 1 to 1 conversion, then a binding update. > > > + > > + reg: > > + maxItems: 1 > > + > > + interrupts: > > + maxItems: 1 > > + > > + clocks: > > + minItems: 4 > > + > > + clock-names: > > + minItems: 4 > > + > > + resets: > > + maxItems: 1 > > You missed reset-names. > > This patch is quite different than previous, in unexpected way. What > happened here? > > > + > > +if: > > Please define it after "allOf:", so it could be easily extended without > changing indentation. > > > + properties: > > + compatible: > > + const: rockchip,rk3399-crypto > > +then: > > + properties: > > + reg: > > + minItems: 2 > > + interrupts: > > + minItems: 2 > > List interrupts. This is really different than your v1. It also looks > different than original bindings and you did not mention any differences > here, nor in the commit msg. Either explain in commit msg all > differences (and why) or move them to separate commit. > > You seem to change the bindings a lot (new properties, different > constraints, new compatibles), so this should all go to separate commit. > Now it is just confusing. > > > + clocks: > > + minItems: 6 > > You need maxItems. Everywhere. > > > + clock-names: > > + minItems: 6 > > List all items. > > > + resets: > > + minItems: 6 > > +else: > > + if: > > + properties: > > + compatible: > > + const: rockchip,rk3328-crypto > > + then: > > + properties: > > + clocks: > > + minItems: 3 > > + clock-names: > > + minItems: 3 > > + > I have create a binding update patch (https://github.com/montjoie/linux/commit/da05ef9bb488c16cfd15a47054f5b1161829b6bf) But I have lot of problem, DT are not validating. Example: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/crypto/rockchip,rk3288-crypto.example.dtb: crypto@ff8a0000: resets: [[4294967295, 174]] is too short I have tried also to set default resets/maxItems to 3 and setting it to 4 via an if. But I still got error like maxItems cannot be update after initial set. Any idea on why my new binding update patch is failling ? Regards
