On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 11:56 PM Conor Dooley
<conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 07:51:07AM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > Hey Justin,
> > On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 04:27:12PM -0700, Justin Chen wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 3:55 PM Conor Dooley <conor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 02:53:43PM -0700, Justin Chen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > + compatible:
> > > > > + enum:
> > > > > + - brcm,asp-v2.0
> > > > > + - brcm,bcm72165-asp
> > > > > + - brcm,asp-v2.1
> > > > > + - brcm,bcm74165-asp
> > > >
> > > > > + compatible = "brcm,bcm72165-asp", "brcm,asp-v2.0";
> > > >
> > > > You can't do this, as Rob's bot has pointed out. Please test the
> > > > bindings :( You need one of these type of constructs:
> > > >
> > > > compatible:
> > > > oneOf:
> > > > - items:
> > > > - const: brcm,bcm72165-asp
> > > > - const: brcm,asp-v2.0
> > > > - items:
> > > > - const: brcm,bcm74165-asp
> > > > - const: brcm,asp-v2.1
> > > >
> > > > Although, given either you or Florian said there are likely to be
> > > > multiple parts, going for an enum, rather than const for the brcm,bcm..
> > > > entry will prevent some churn. Up to you.
> > > >
> > > Urg so close. Thought it was a trivial change, so didn't bother
> > > retesting the binding. I think I have it right now...
> > >
> > > compatible:
> > > oneOf:
> > > - items:
> > > - enum:
> > > - brcm,bcm72165-asp
> > > - brcm,bcm74165-asp
> > > - enum:
> > > - brcm,asp-v2.0
> > > - brcm,asp-v2.1
> > >
> > > Something like this look good?
> >
> > I am still caffeine-less, but this implies that both of
> > "brcm,bcm72165-asp", "brcm,asp-v2.0"
> > _and_
> > "brcm,bcm72165-asp", "brcm,asp-v2.1"
> > are. I suspect that that is not the case, unless "brcm,asp-v2.0" is a
>
> I a word. s/are/are valid/
>
Gotcha. I got something like this now.
compatible:
oneOf:
- items:
- enum:
- brcm,bcm74165-asp
- const: brcm,asp-v2.1
- items:
- enum:
- brcm,bcm72165-asp
- const: brcm,asp-v2.0
Apologies, still getting used to this yaml stuff. Starting to make a
bit more sense to me now.
> > valid fallback for "brcm,asp-v2.1"?
> > The oneOf: also becomes redundant since you only have one items:.
> >
> > > Will submit a v5 tomorrow.
> >
> > BTW, when you do, could you use the address listed in MAINTAINERS rather
> > than the one you used for this version?
> >
I changed the address listed in MAINTAINERS from the previous versions
of this patchset. The current version should match the address that
this patch set was sent from. Looks like I forgot to add a changelog
for that in v4.
Thanks,
Justin
> > Cheers,
> > Conor.
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
