On Fri, Dec 23, 2022 at 11:11:27AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 22/12/2022 19:38, Cristian Marussi wrote: > > Add new SCMI Syspower protocol bindings definitions and example. > > > > Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Signed-off-by: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@xxxxxxx> > > --- > > Got lost in translation probably...from txt to yaml > > Please use scripts/get_maintainers.pl to get a list of necessary people > and lists to CC. It might happen, that command when run on an older > kernel, gives you outdated entries. Therefore please be sure you base > your patches on recent Linux kernel. > Hi Krzysztof, thanks for the feedback and sorry I posted with an incomplete Cc list. > > --- > > .../devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml | 10 ++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml > > index 1c0388da6721..f3dd77a470dd 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml > > @@ -111,6 +111,12 @@ properties: > > required: > > - '#power-domain-cells' > > > > + protocol@12: > > + type: object > > + properties: > > + reg: > > + const: 0x12 > > + > > Why? It did not got lost, it's already covered by pattern. If you refer > to particular warning, please paste it in commit msg. Otherwise it looks > incorrect. > Yes indeed, but as a matter of fact it seemed to me that we used to add an entry and an example for all the currently published standard SCMI protocols, even though already covered by the patternProp (which covers also any custom-vendor protocol in the wild) and not sporting any additional custom properties (see protocol@18), but maybe this is just a unneeded wrong habit adding only cruft to the bindings. If you think it does not add any value I can happily drop this, or limiting the addition just to the example (and/or drop equally the unneeded protocol@18 node too in this case). Thanks, Cristian
