On Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 1:28 PM Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 09, 2022 at 09:12:31AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 8, 2022 at 10:01 AM Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 12:13:11PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 05:34:22PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote: > > > > > Baikal-T1 SoC is equipped with DWC PCIe v4.60a Root Port controller, which > > > > > link can be trained to work on up to Gen.3 speed over up to x4 lanes. The > > > > > controller is supposed to be fed up with four clock sources: DBI > > > > > peripheral clock, AXI application Tx/Rx clocks and external PHY/core > > > > > reference clock generating the 100MHz signal. In addition to that the > > > > > platform provide a way to reset each part of the controller: > > > > > sticky/non-sticky bits, host controller core, PIPE interface, PCS/PHY and > > > > > Hot/Power reset signal. The Root Port controller is equipped with multiple > > > > > IRQ lines like MSI, system AER, PME, HP, Bandwidth change, Link > > > > > equalization request and eDMA ones. The registers space is accessed over > > > > > the DBI interface. There can be no more than four inbound or outbound iATU > > > > > windows configured. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Serge Semin <Sergey.Semin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > [...] > > > > > + reg-names: > > > > > + minItems: 3 > > > > > + maxItems: 3 > > > > > + items: > > > > > + enum: [ dbi, dbi2, config ] > > > > > > > > > > > Define the order. Here, and the rest. > > > > > > Ok. I will, but please answer to my question, I asked you in the > > > previous email thread: > > > > > > Serge Semin wrote: > > > > Rob Herring wrote: > > > > > ... > > > > > Tell me why you need random order. > > > > > > > > Because I don't see a need in constraining the order. If we get to set > > > > the order requirement, then why do we need to have the "*-names" > > > > property at all? > > > > Originally, it was for cases where you have a variable number of > > entries and can't determine what each entry is. IOW, when you have > > optional entries in the middle of required entries. But then everyone > > *loves* -names even when not needed or useful such as 'phy-names = > > "pcie"' (the phy subsys requiring names was part of the problem there, > > but that's been fixed). > > > > > > IMO having "reg" with max/minItems restriction plus generic > > > > description and "reg-names" with possible values enumerated seems very > > > > suitable pattern in this case. Don't you think? > > > > No, I think this is just as concise and defines the order too: > > > > reg-names: > > items: > > - const: dbi > > - const: dbi2 > > - const: config > > > > > > > > In addition to that what about optional names? How would you suggest > > > to handle such case without the non-ordered pattern? > > > > > Sorry, I don't follow. > > I meant exactly the case you've described as the main goal of the > named properties. My worry was that by using the pattern: > > reg-names: > items: > - const: name > - const: another_name > - const: one_more_name > > you get to fix the names order, which they were invented to get rid > from. If you get to use that pattern the only optional names could be > the names at the tail of the array, which isn't always applicable. In > that case you'd have no choice but to use the pattern suggested by > me. For this binding, we use reg-names because the order and what's present varies by platform. But for a given platform the order is fixed. Rob
