On 23/12/2022 11:37, Cristian Marussi wrote: >>> >>> + 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). Duplicating the node (once in properties, second in patternProperties) is not needed. I am also not sure what would be the point to add to the example - example does not have to be complete DTS for all cases, but illustrate the binding and allow is to test it. Best regards, Krzysztof
