Hi Krzysztof Kozlowski,
> Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 3/6] dt-bindings: rtc: isl1208: Convert to json-
> schema
>
> On 04/05/2023 18:22, Biju Das wrote:
> > Hi Krzysztof Kozlowski and Rob,
> >
> >>>> <fabrizio.castro.jz@xxxxxxxxxxx>; linux-renesas-soc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>> Subject: [PATCH RFC 3/6] dt-bindings: rtc: isl1208: Convert to
> >>>> json-schema
> >>>>
> >>>> Convert the isl1208 RTC device tree binding documentation to json-
> >> schema.
> >>>>
> >>>> Update the example to match reality.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Biju Das <biju.das.jz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> .../devicetree/bindings/rtc/isil,isl1208.txt | 38 ----------
> >>>> .../devicetree/bindings/rtc/isil,isl1208.yaml | 74
> >>>> +++++++++++++++++++
> >>>> 2 files changed, 74 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-) delete mode
> >>>> 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/isil,isl1208.txt
> >>>> create mode 100644
> >>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/isil,isl1208.yaml
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/isil,isl1208.txt
> >>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/isil,isl1208.txt
> >>>> deleted file mode 100644
> >>>> index 51f003006f04..000000000000
> >>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/isil,isl1208.txt
> >>>> +++ /dev/null
> >>>> @@ -1,38 +0,0 @@
> >>>> -Intersil ISL1209/19 I2C RTC/Alarm chip with event in
> >>>> -
> >>>> -ISL12X9 have additional pins EVIN and #EVDET for tamper detection,
> >>>> while the
> >>>> -ISL1208 and ISL1218 do not. They are all use the same driver with
> >>>> the bindings -described here, with chip specific properties as noted.
> >>>> -
> >>>> -Required properties supported by the device:
> >>>> - - "compatible": Should be one of the following:
> >>>> - - "isil,isl1208"
> >>>> - - "isil,isl1209"
> >>>> - - "isil,isl1218"
> >>>> - - "isil,isl1219"
> >>>> - - "reg": I2C bus address of the device
> >>>> -
> >>>> -Optional properties:
> >>>> - - "interrupt-names": list which may contains "irq" and "evdet"
> >>>> - evdet applies to isl1209 and isl1219 only
> >>>> - - "interrupts": list of interrupts for "irq" and "evdet"
> >>>> - evdet applies to isl1209 and isl1219 only
> >>>> - - "isil,ev-evienb": Enable or disable internal pull on EVIN pin
> >>>> - Applies to isl1209 and isl1219 only
> >>>> - Possible values are 0 and 1
> >>>> - Value 0 enables internal pull-up on evin pin, 1 disables it.
> >>>> - Default will leave the non-volatile configuration of the pullup
> >>>> - as is.
> >>>> -
> >>>> -Example isl1219 node with #IRQ pin connected to SoC gpio1 pin12
> >>>> and #EVDET pin -connected to SoC gpio2 pin 24 and internal pull-up
> >>>> enabled in
> >>> EVIN pin.
> >>>> -
> >>>> - isl1219: rtc@68 {
> >>>> - compatible = "isil,isl1219";
> >>>> - reg = <0x68>;
> >>>> - interrupt-names = "irq", "evdet";
> >>>> - interrupts-extended = <&gpio1 12 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING>,
> >>>> - <&gpio2 24 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING>;
> >>>> - isil,ev-evienb = <1>;
> >>>> - };
> >>>> -
> >>>> diff --git
> >>>> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/isil,isl1208.yaml
> >>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/isil,isl1208.yaml
> >>>> new file mode 100644
> >>>> index 000000000000..04d51887855f
> >>>> --- /dev/null
> >>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/isil,isl1208.yaml
> >>>> @@ -0,0 +1,74 @@
> >>>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) %YAML
> >>>> +1.2
> >>>> +---
> >>>> +$id:
> >>>> +
> >>>> +title: Intersil ISL12{08,09,18,19} I2C RTC/Alarm chip
> >>>> +
> >>>> +maintainers:
> >>>> + - Biju Das <biju.das.jz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> + - Trent Piepho <tpiepho@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> +
> >>>> +properties:
> >>>> + compatible:
> >>>> + oneOf:
> >>>> + - enum:
> >>>> + - isil,isl1208
> >>>> + - isil,isl1209
> >>>> + - isil,isl1218
> >>>> + - isil,isl1219
> >>>> +
> >>>> + reg:
> >>>> + maxItems: 1
> >>>> +
> >>>> + interrupts:
> >>>> + minItems: 1
> >>>> + maxItems: 2
> >>>> +
> >>>> + interrupt-names:
> >>>> + items:
> >>>> + - const: irq
> >>>> + - const: evdet
> >>>> +
> >>>> + isil,ev-evienb:
> >>>> + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32
> >>>> + enum: [ 0, 1 ]
> >>>> + default: 0
> >
> >
> > What is your thoughts on this? we should keep default or we should remove?
> >
> > As per HW data sheet[1], the reset value is 0, [1]
> > https://www.renesas.com/us/en/document/dst/isl1219-datasheet
> >
> > But as per text version of bindings [2], Looks like default is not needed.
>
> Missing value has different meaning in original binding, so default is wrong
> here and you should explain that meaning in description.
OK, I will remove default and use the same description from the original bindings
and send it as separate patch.
Cheers,
Biju
