On Sun, May 01, 2022 at 07:17:05PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Sun, 1 May 2022 12:19:52 +0100
> Biju Das <biju.das.jz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > ADC found on RZ/G2UL SoC is almost identical to RZ/G2L SoC, but RZ/G2UL
> > has 2 analog input channels compared to 8 channels on RZ/G2L. Therefore,
> > added a new compatible to handle this difference.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Biju Das <biju.das.jz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > v1->v2:
> > * Removed Items and used const for RZ/G2UL compatible
> > * Add allOf:if:then restricting available channels per SoC variant.
> > ---
> > .../bindings/iio/adc/renesas,rzg2l-adc.yaml | 34 ++++++++++++++-----
> > 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/renesas,rzg2l-adc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/renesas,rzg2l-adc.yaml
> > index d66c24cae1e1..d76c5ba3d625 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/renesas,rzg2l-adc.yaml
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/renesas,rzg2l-adc.yaml
> > @@ -17,11 +17,13 @@ description: |
> >
> > properties:
> > compatible:
> > - items:
> > - - enum:
> > - - renesas,r9a07g044-adc # RZ/G2L
> > - - renesas,r9a07g054-adc # RZ/V2L
> > - - const: renesas,rzg2l-adc
> > + oneOf:
> > + - const: renesas,renesas,r9a07g043-adc # RZ/G2UL
> > + - items:
> > + - enum:
> > + - renesas,r9a07g044-adc # RZ/G2L
> > + - renesas,r9a07g054-adc # RZ/V2L
> > + - const: renesas,rzg2l-adc
> >
> > reg:
> > maxItems: 1
> > @@ -76,10 +78,24 @@ patternProperties:
> > properties:
> > reg:
> > description: |
> > - The channel number. It can have up to 8 channels numbered from 0 to 7.
> > - items:
> > - - minimum: 0
> > - maximum: 7
> > + The channel number. It can have up to 8 channels numbered from 0 to 7
> > + for RZ/{G2L,V2L} SoCs or 2 channels numbered from 0 to 1 for RZ/G2UL
> > + SoC.
> > + allOf:
> > + if:
> - if:
> properties:
> etc
>
> Otherwise I think you can only have one in your allOf: which rather
> removes the point of having one.
>
> I was surprised this passed the checks, so added another if to verify my
> reasoning...
It didn't apply, so checks didn't run. But it should fail not for the
reason you correctly identified, but because 'allOf' is a DT property
here not json-schema vocabulary.
Rob
