On 17/08/2022 11:15, Samuel Holland wrote:
>>> + 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?
>
> The same question applies for the D1 SoC DTSI, where I use this same construct.
>
> (And technically this does validate with the current schema.)
BTW, it validates only because of limitation in DT schema. Such
combination is not allowed and I wonder if we can make the schema
stricter...
Best regards,
Krzysztof
