On Fri, Dec 23, 2022 at 12:22:34PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > 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. > Thanks, I'll drop this patch. Cristian
