On 8/17/22 3:27 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 17/08/2022 11:15, Samuel Holland wrote:
>>>> +examples:
>>>> + - |
>>>> + audio-codec@2030000 {
>>>> + compatible = "simple-mfd", "syscon";
>>>
>>> This cannot be on its own. Both require device specific compatible.
>>
>> Again, the device-specific compatible does not exist, because the binding for
>> the audio codec has not been written (and it will be quite nontrivial).
>>
>> So I can:
>> 1) Leave the example as-is until the audio codec binding gets written,
>> and fill in the specific compatible at that time.
>> 2) Remove the example, with the reasoning that the example really
>> belongs with the MFD parent (like for the other regulator). Then
>> there will be no example until the audio codec binding is written.
>> 3) Drop the analog LDOs from this series entirely, and some parts
>> of the SoC (like thermal monitoring) cannot be added to the DTSI
>> until the audio codec binding is written.
>>
>> What do you think?
>
> How about just removing the audio-codec node? The schema is about
> regulators, not audio-codec.
That works for me. I put the extra node there to signify that this is a MFD
child and requires some parent node to work, but I suppose it is not that
helpful to have.
> OTOH, if you have parent device schema, you could put the example only
> there. But as I understand, you don't have, right?
Right.
>> The same question applies for the D1 SoC DTSI, where I use this same construct.
>
> This is not correct and should be fixed. Either you add the schema with
> compatible or please drop the device node from the DTSI.
That's what I was afraid of.
Regards,
Samuel
>> (And technically this does validate with the current schema.)
