On 5/19/24 13:03, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 14/05/2024 22:54, Eddie James wrote:
+properties:
+ compatible:
+ enum:
+ - ibm,i2c-fsi
+
+ reg:
+ items:
+ - description: FSI slave address
+
+ "#address-cells":
+ const: 1
+
+ "#size-cells":
+ const: 0
+
+patternProperties:
+ "^i2c(@.*)?":
Either you have or you have not unit addresses. Please fix the pattern.
Why is this so flexible? Do you want to deprecate i2c-bus in favor of
i2c? If so, then example should use new naming. I am fine with children
as i2c-bus, assuming this is allowed by dtschema. Did you actually test it?
This is the exact pattern of the i2c-controller schema node name, which
I thought would be good. I can make it more specific. But yes I tested
it, i2c-bus works fine
Thanks, Eddie
Best regards,
Krzysztof
