On 4/30/24 02:35, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 29/04/2024 23:01, Eddie James wrote:
Convert to json-schema for the FSI-attached I2C controller.
Signed-off-by: Eddie James <eajames@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
Changes since v3:
- Update MAINTAINERS
- Change commit message to match similar commits
.../devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-fsi.txt | 40 -------------
.../devicetree/bindings/i2c/ibm,i2c-fsi.yaml | 58 +++++++++++++++++++
Please split independent patches to separate patchsets, so they can be
reviewed and picked up by respective maintainers.
I don't see any dependency here. Neither in 1st patch.
OK, I guess that makes it complicated for Andrew to pull together with
the device tree changes in a way that avoids warnings, but I agree there
is no direct dependency.
MAINTAINERS | 2 +-
3 files changed, 59 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-)
delete mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-fsi.txt
create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/ibm,i2c-fsi.yaml
...
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/ibm,i2c-fsi.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/ibm,i2c-fsi.yaml
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..8ff5585a3aa5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/ibm,i2c-fsi.yaml
@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
+%YAML 1.2
+---
+$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/i2c/ibm,i2c-fsi.yaml#
+$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
+
+title: IBM FSI-attached I2C controller
+
+maintainers:
+ - Eddie James <eajames@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
+
+description:
+ This I2C controller is an FSI CFAM engine, providing access to a number of
+ I2C busses. Therefore this node will always be a child of an FSI CFAM node.
+
+properties:
+ compatible:
+ enum:
+ - ibm,i2c-fsi
+
+ reg:
+ items:
+ - description: FSI slave address
+
+required:
+ - compatible
+ - reg
+
+allOf:
+ - $ref: /schemas/i2c/i2c-controller.yaml#
+
+unevaluatedProperties: false
+
+examples:
+ - |
+ i2c@1800 {
+ compatible = "ibm,i2c-fsi";
+ reg = <0x1800 0x400>;
+ #address-cells = <1>;
+ #size-cells = <0>;
+
+ i2c-bus@0 {
+ reg = <0>;
+ #address-cells = <1>;
+ #size-cells = <0>;
This does not look right. Why do you have multiple i2c-bus children? I
do not think i2c-controller.yaml schema allows this.
It does seem to allow it, as this validates here and in the device tree.
It is this way because the I2C controller provides multiple busses.
Should I change it so to add "bus" pattern properties that reference
i2c-controller.yaml?
Thanks,
Eddie
Best regards,
Krzysztof
