On 14/06/2023 00:01, Frank Li wrote: > On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 11:43:31PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 13/06/2023 23:31, Frank Li wrote: >>> Extend Freescale eDMA driver bindings to support eDMA3 IP blocks in >>> i.MX8QM and i.MX8QXP SoCs. In i.MX93, both eDMA3 and eDMA4 are now. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Frank Li <Frank.Li@xxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> .../devicetree/bindings/dma/fsl,edma.yaml | 118 +++++++++++++++--- >>> 1 file changed, 100 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dma/fsl,edma.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dma/fsl,edma.yaml >>> index 5fd8fc604261..2f79492fb332 100644 >>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dma/fsl,edma.yaml >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dma/fsl,edma.yaml >>> @@ -21,32 +21,20 @@ properties: >>> - enum: >>> - fsl,vf610-edma >>> - fsl,imx7ulp-edma >>> + - fsl,imx8qm-adma >>> + - fsl,imx8qm-edma >>> + - fsl,imx93-edma3 >>> + - fsl,imx93-edma4 >>> - items: >>> - const: fsl,ls1028a-edma >>> - const: fsl,vf610-edma >>> >>> - reg: >>> - minItems: 2 >>> - maxItems: 3 >>> - >>> - interrupts: >>> - minItems: 2 >>> - maxItems: 17 >> >> What is happening here? > > I found dt_check always check this part firstly, then check allOf. > >> >>> - >>> - interrupt-names: >>> - minItems: 2 >>> - maxItems: 17 >>> - >>> - "#dma-cells": >>> - const: 2 >>> - >>> - dma-channels: >>> - const: 32 >> >> No, why all these are being removed? > > I move common part ahead of if-then-else branch to read early. > >> >>> - >>> clocks: >>> + minItems: 1 >>> maxItems: 2 >>> >>> clock-names: >>> + minItems: 1 >>> maxItems: 2 >>> >>> big-endian: >>> @@ -55,6 +43,43 @@ properties: >>> eDMA are implemented in big endian mode, otherwise in little mode. >>> type: boolean >>> >>> +if: >> >> This should not be outside of your allOf. This patch looks entirely >> different than your v4 and I don't really understand why. >> > > allOf looks like addtional constraints addition to previous define. > for example: > if previous interrupts is 17, I can't overwrite to bigger value 64 > in this sesson. Yes, because the top-level had wrong constraint. Fix top-level, don't remove it. > > previous version: dts check report two error, > first: interrupt is too long. (look like check top one) > then: interrupt is too short. (look like check allOf part) > >> >>> + properties: >>> + compatible: >>> + contains: >>> + enum: >>> + - fsl,imx8qm-adma >>> + - fsl,imx8qm-edma >>> + - fsl,imx93-edma3 >>> + - fsl,imx93-edma4 >>> +then: >>> + properties: >>> + reg: >>> + maxItems: 1 >>> + interrupts: >>> + minItems: 1 >>> + maxItems: 64 >> >> What's more, you don't have these properties defined in top-level. >> Sorry, they should not be moved. I did not ask for this. > > It is there. > if-then-else before "required" It's in if, not in top-level properties. Best regards, Krzysztof
