Hello Rob & Krzysztof, michael@xxxxxxxx wrote on Tue, 13 Sep 2022 16:21:24 +0200: > Am 2022-09-12 21:20, schrieb Rob Herring: > > >> + base-mac-address: > >> + type: object > >> + description: > >> + Base MAC address for all on-module network interfaces. The >> first > >> + argument of the phandle will be treated as an offset. > >> + > >> + properties: > >> + "#nvmem-cell-cells": > > > > You can't just add a new #.*-cells buried in a device binding. I'm fine > > with the concept though having more than 1 user would be nice. > > I was under the impression the tooling will handle it, but as you > pointed out below, this isn't the case for a missing default. The > statement above should only be to validate that there is one > additional argument if the base-mac-address node is used in a > phandle. > > > Any case that doesn't match foos->#foo-cells or has a default # of > > cells if missing (as this does) has to be added to dtschema to decode > it > > properly. It won't really matter until there's a user with 2 or more > > entries. I'm happy to do update the dtschema part, but I'd prefer to > see > > the schema in dtschema rather than the kernel. > > Ok, but I'm not sure I understand you correctly here. You will > update the dtschema tooling (I guess it's about fixup_phandles() in > dtb.py) and which schema should be in dtschema? nvmem.yaml > and/or nvmem-consumer.yaml? The entire schema or only a > subset of it? I currently see this as the main "blocking point", although Rob told he was happy with the overall idea, so let's try to move forward together. We discussed on IRC with Michael, I guess what's remaining is: - Michael: Move #nvmem-cell-cells to nvmem.yaml in the core dtschema. - Rob/Krzysztof: Add the necessary tooling to use this new property and enforce the right # of cells cells (may be added later as anyway for now we only have single consumer cases). Is this what you meant? Thanks, Miquèl
