On Wed, 18 May 2022 at 14:58, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 17/05/2022 22:53, Robert Marko wrote: > > Convert the bindings of Qualcomm SPMI regulators to DT schema. > > > > Signed-off-by: Robert Marko <robimarko@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/regulator/qcom,spmi-regulator.yaml# > > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# > > + > > +title: Qualcomm SPMI Regulators > > + > > +maintainers: > > + - Robert Marko <robimarko@xxxxxxxxx> > > + > > +properties: > > + compatible: > > + enum: > > + - qcom,pm660-regulators > > + - qcom,pm660l-regulators > > + - qcom,pm8004-regulators > > + - qcom,pm8005-regulators > > + - qcom,pm8226-regulators > > + - qcom,pm8841-regulators > > + - qcom,pm8916-regulators > > + - qcom,pm8941-regulators > > + - qcom,pm8950-regulators > > + - qcom,pm8994-regulators > > + - qcom,pmi8994-regulators > > + - qcom,pms405-regulators > > + > > + interrupts: true > > + > > + interrupt-names: true > > I think we misunderstood each other. Old bindings indeed did not require > the interrupts, although if present they should be always defined. > Therefore here you should specify number of items and their names. Yeah, I think we are misunderstanding each other. Old text-based bindings specified the interrupts, but no naming or number was enforced, so I looked into the driver to see what is going on. Only pm8941 has interrupts defined in the driver and DTS, so I added those based on compatible matching, the same as with supplies. My logic was that it was only valid for interrupts to be described if PM8941 was used as describing interrupts for other regulator models will do nothing. Regards, Robert > > Rest looks ok > > > Best regards, > Krzysztof
