On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 09:15:17AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 27/08/2023 23:01, Serge Semin wrote: > > Hi Krzysztof > > > > On Sun, Aug 27, 2023 at 09:56:06AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >> On 26/08/2023 23:04, Serge Semin wrote: > >>>> + clock-names: > >>>> + items: > >>>> + - const: stmmaceth > >>> > >>> clock-names: > >>> const: stmmaceth > >>> ? > >> > > > >> The existing syntax is correct. This is a string array. > > > > Could you please clarify whether it's a requirement (always specify > > items: property for an array) or just an acceptable option (another > > one is suggested in my comment)? I am asking because: > > 1. In this case the "clock-names" array is supposed to have only one > > item. Directly setting "const: stmmaceth" with no items: property > > shall simplify it. > > 2. There are single-entry "clock-names" property in the DT-bindings > > defined as I suggested. > > 3. There is a "compatible" property which is also a string array but > > it can be defined as I suggested (omitting the items property). > > > > so based on all of that using the "items:"-based constraint here seems > > redundant. Am I wrong to think like that? If so in what aspect? > > Syntax is correct in both cases. However the single list compatible > *cannot grow*, while single list clock might, when developer notices > that the binding was incomplete. People add binding matching drivers, > not the hardware, thus having incomplete list of clocks is happening all > the time. So it's just a matter of maintainability. Got it. Thanks. -Serge(y) > > Best regards, > Krzysztof >
