On 27/03/2023 17:27, Cristian Marussi wrote:
>>> + - |
>>> + firmware {
>>> + scmi {
>>> + compatible = "arm,scmi";
>>> + mboxes = <&mhu_U_tx 0 0>, <&mhu_U_rx 0 0>;
>>> + shmem = <&cpu_scp_lpri0>;
>>> +
>>> + #address-cells = <1>;
>>> + #size-cells = <0>;
>>
>> I don't think adding one more example with difference in only one piece
>> is needed here.
>>
>
> Mmm, I thought was sensible to add this example, given that a mailbox
> transport configuration for a mailbox exposing unidrectional channels is
> quite different from the usual bidirectional channel config already
> present in the pre-existent example.
>
> I'll add mbox-names into this example and see if I can change your
> mind...or I can then finally drop it.
And what exactly this one more example changes? Does not validate
different parts of the binding if only one property differs...
Best regards,
Krzysztof
