Hello Conor, On Fri Feb 23, 2024 at 7:12 PM CET, Conor Dooley wrote: > On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 05:05:25PM +0100, Théo Lebrun wrote: > > Compatible can be A or B, not A or B or A+B. Remove last option. > > A=ti,j721e-usb and B=ti,am64-usb. > > > > Signed-off-by: Théo Lebrun <theo.lebrun@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/ti,j721e-usb.yaml | 9 +++------ > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/ti,j721e-usb.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/ti,j721e-usb.yaml > > index 95ff9791baea..949f45eb45c2 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/ti,j721e-usb.yaml > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/ti,j721e-usb.yaml > > @@ -11,12 +11,9 @@ maintainers: > > > > properties: > > compatible: > > - oneOf: > > - - const: ti,j721e-usb > > - - const: ti,am64-usb > > - - items: > > - - const: ti,j721e-usb > > - - const: ti,am64-usb > > Correct, this makes no sense. The devices seem to be compatible though, > so I would expect this to actually be: > oneOf: > - const: ti,j721e-usb > - items: > - const: ti,am64-usb > - const: ti,j721e-usb I need your help to grasp what that change is supposed to express? Would you mind turning it into english sentences? A=ti,j721e-usb and B=ti,am64-usb. My understanding of your proposal is that a device can either be compat with A or B. But B is compatible with A so you express it as a list of items. If B is compat with A then A is compat with B. Does the order of items matter? I've not applied your proposal to check for dtbs_check but I'd guess it would throw warnings for the single existing upstream DTSI (as of v6.8-rc6) that uses "ti,am64-usb"? See: arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am64-main.dtsi. Thanks Conor! -- Théo Lebrun, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
