On Fri, Oct 07, 2022 at 09:53:50AM +0200, Patrick Rudolph wrote: > Update the pca954x bindings to add support for the Maxim MAX735x/MAX736x > chips. The functionality will be provided by the exisintg pca954x driver. > > While on it make the interrupts support conditionally as not all of the > existing chips have interrupts. > > For chips that are powered off by default add an optional regulator > called vdd-supply. > > Signed-off-by: Patrick Rudolph <patrick.rudolph@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > .../bindings/i2c/i2c-mux-pca954x.yaml | 39 ++++++++++++++++--- > 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-mux-pca954x.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-mux-pca954x.yaml > index 9f1726d0356b..efad0a95806f 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-mux-pca954x.yaml > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-mux-pca954x.yaml > @@ -4,21 +4,25 @@ > $id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/i2c/i2c-mux-pca954x.yaml# > $schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# > > -title: NXP PCA954x I2C bus switch > +title: NXP PCA954x I2C and compatible bus switches > > maintainers: > - Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > description: > - The binding supports NXP PCA954x and PCA984x I2C mux/switch devices. > - > -allOf: > - - $ref: /schemas/i2c/i2c-mux.yaml# Why do you move the allOf statement to the bottom of the schema? > + The binding supports NXP PCA954x and PCA984x I2C mux/switch devices, > + and the Maxim MAX735x and MAX736x I2C mux/switch devices. What about combining the sentence: "The binding supports NXP PCA954x/PCA984x and Maxim MAX735x/MAX736x I2C mux/switch devices." ? Currently it does look a bit bulky. > > properties: > compatible: > oneOf: > - enum: > + - maxim,max7356 > + - maxim,max7357 > + - maxim,max7358 > + - maxim,max7367 > + - maxim,max7368 > + - maxim,max7369 > - nxp,pca9540 > - nxp,pca9542 > - nxp,pca9543 > @@ -59,10 +63,33 @@ properties: > description: if present, overrides i2c-mux-idle-disconnect > $ref: /schemas/mux/mux-controller.yaml#/properties/idle-state > > + vdd-supply: > + description: A voltage regulator supplying power to the chip. > + > required: > - compatible > - reg > > +allOf: > + - $ref: /schemas/i2c/i2c-mux.yaml# > + - if: > + not: > + properties: > + compatible: > + contains: > + enum: > + - maxim,max7367 > + - maxim,max7369 > + - nxp,pca9542 > + - nxp,pca9543 > + - nxp,pca9544 > + - nxp,pca9545 > + then: > + properties: > + interrupts: false > + "#interrupt-cells": false > + interrupt-controller: false I'd suggest to add an opposite definition. Evaluate the properties for the devices which expect them being evaluated instead of falsing their existence for the devices which don't support the interrupts. -Sergey > + > unevaluatedProperties: false > > examples: > @@ -79,6 +106,8 @@ examples: > #size-cells = <0>; > reg = <0x74>; > > + vdd-supply = <&p3v3>; > + > interrupt-parent = <&ipic>; > interrupts = <17 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW>; > interrupt-controller; > -- > 2.37.3 >
