On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 10:23 AM Conor Dooley <conor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 05:24:55PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > > Defining the size of register regions is not really in scope of what > > bindings need to cover. The schema for this is also not completely correct > > as a reg entry can be variable number of cells for the address and size, > > but the schema assumes 1 cell. > > > > Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Does this not also remove restrictions on what the number in the reg > entry is actually allowed to be? Yes, that's what I mean with the first sentence. We don't do this anywhere else with the exception of some I2C devices with fixed addresses. Keying off of the interrupt property also seems questionable. If the register size is different, that should be a different compatible. I only noticed this when I happened to remove "definitions/cell" and this broke. That wasn't really intended to be public. Rob
