On 28/05/2024 13:16, Andreas Kemnade wrote: > On Tue, 28 May 2024 12:04:22 +0200 > Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 28/05/2024 08:57, Andreas Kemnade wrote: >>> Convert the regulator bindings to yaml files. To allow only the regulator >>> compatible corresponding to the toplevel mfd compatible, split the file >>> into one per device. >>> >>> To not need to allow any subnode name, specify clearly node names >>> for all the regulators. >>> >>> Drop one twl5030 compatible due to no documentation on mfd side and no >>> users of the twl5030. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Andreas Kemnade <andreas@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> Reason for being RFC: >>> the integration into ti,twl.yaml seems not to work as expected >>> make dt_binding_check crashes without any clear error message >>> if used on the ti,twl.yaml >>> >>> .../devicetree/bindings/mfd/ti,twl.yaml | 4 +- >>> .../regulator/ti,twl4030-regulator.yaml | 402 ++++++++++++++++++ >>> .../regulator/ti,twl6030-regulator.yaml | 292 +++++++++++++ >>> .../regulator/ti,twl6032-regulator.yaml | 238 +++++++++++ >>> .../bindings/regulator/twl-regulator.txt | 80 ---- >>> 5 files changed, 935 insertions(+), 81 deletions(-) >>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/ti,twl4030-regulator.yaml >>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/ti,twl6030-regulator.yaml >>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/ti,twl6032-regulator.yaml >>> delete mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/twl-regulator.txt >>> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/ti,twl.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/ti,twl.yaml >>> index c2357fecb56cc..4ced6e471d338 100644 >>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/ti,twl.yaml >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/ti,twl.yaml >>> @@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ allOf: >>> properties: >>> compatible: >>> const: ti,twl4030-wdt >>> - >>> + $ref: /schemas/regulator/ti,twl4030-regulator.yaml >> >> That's not needed, just like othehr refs below. >> > but how to prevent error messages like this: > > arch/arm/boot/dts/ti/omap/omap2430-sdp.dtb: twl@48: Unevaluated properties are not allowed ('gpio', 'keypad', 'pwm', 'pwmled', 'regulator-vaux1', 'regulator-vaux2', 'regulator-vaux3', 'regulator-vaux4', 'regulator-vdac', 'regulator-vdd1', 'regulator-vintana1', 'regulator-vintana2', 'regulator-vintdig', 'regulator-vio', 'regulator-vmmc1', 'regulator-vmmc2', 'regulator-vpll1', 'regulator-vpll2', 'regulator-vsim', 'regulator-vusb1v5', 'regulator-vusb1v8', 'regulator-vusb3v1 > > esp. the regulator parts without adding stuff to ti,twl.yaml? Eh? That's a watchdog, not regulator. Why do you add ref to regulator? ... >>> + >>> + regulator-vaux2: >>> + type: object >>> + $ref: regulator.yaml# >>> + unevaluatedProperties: false >>> + properties: >>> + compatible: >>> + const: "ti,twl4030-vaux2" >>> + >>> + regulator-initial-mode: >>> + items: >>> + - items: >>> + enum: >>> + - 0x08 # Sleep mode, the nominal output voltage is maintained >>> + # with low power consumption with low load current capability >>> + - 0x0e # Active mode, the regulator can deliver its nominal output >>> + # voltage with full-load current capability >> >> These entries are the same. Just use patternProperties and enum for >> compatible. >> > hmm, if I am using that, how do I prevent e.g. constructions like this to be > valid? > > regulator-vaux2 { > compatible = "ti,twl4030-vaux1"; > }; > Why would node name matter if you have compatible? The entire point of compatibles is to not to rely on node names. Best regards, Krzysztof