On 05/07/2024 22:02, Jim Quinlan wrote: > On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 2:40 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On 03/07/2024 20:02, Jim Quinlan wrote: >>> - Update maintainer; Nicolas hasn't been active and it >>> makes more sense to have a Broadcom maintainer >>> - Add a driver compatible string for the new STB SOC 7712 >> >> You meant device? Bindings are for hardware. >> >>> - Add two new resets for the 7712: "bridge", for the >>> the bridge between the PCIe core and the memory bus; >>> "swinit", the PCIe core reset. >>> - Order the compatible strings alphabetically >>> - Restructure the reset controllers so that the definitions >>> appear first before any rules that govern them. >> >> Please split cleanups from new device support. >> >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Jim Quinlan <james.quinlan@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> .../bindings/pci/brcm,stb-pcie.yaml | 44 +++++++++++++++---- >>> 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/brcm,stb-pcie.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/brcm,stb-pcie.yaml >>> index 11f8ea33240c..a070f35d28d7 100644 >>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/brcm,stb-pcie.yaml >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/brcm,stb-pcie.yaml >>> @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ $schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# >>> title: Brcmstb PCIe Host Controller >>> >>> maintainers: >>> - - Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenzjulienne@xxxxxxx> >>> + - Jim Quinlan <james.quinlan@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> properties: >>> compatible: >>> @@ -16,11 +16,12 @@ properties: >>> - brcm,bcm2711-pcie # The Raspberry Pi 4 >>> - brcm,bcm4908-pcie >>> - brcm,bcm7211-pcie # Broadcom STB version of RPi4 >>> - - brcm,bcm7278-pcie # Broadcom 7278 Arm >>> - brcm,bcm7216-pcie # Broadcom 7216 Arm >>> - - brcm,bcm7445-pcie # Broadcom 7445 Arm >>> + - brcm,bcm7278-pcie # Broadcom 7278 Arm >>> - brcm,bcm7425-pcie # Broadcom 7425 MIPs >>> - brcm,bcm7435-pcie # Broadcom 7435 MIPs >>> + - brcm,bcm7445-pcie # Broadcom 7445 Arm >>> + - brcm,bcm7712-pcie # STB sibling SOC of Raspberry Pi 5 >>> >>> reg: >>> maxItems: 1 >>> @@ -95,6 +96,20 @@ properties: >>> minItems: 1 >>> maxItems: 3 >>> >>> + resets: >>> + items: >>> + - description: reset for phy calibration >>> + - description: reset for PCIe/CPU bus bridge >>> + - description: reset for soft PCIe core reset >>> + - description: reset for PERST# PCIe signal >> >> This won't work and I doubt you tested your code. You miss minItems. > > I did test my code and there were no errors. I perform the following test: > > make ARCH=arm64 dt_binding_check DT_CHECKER_FLAGS=-m > DT_SCHEMA_FILES=Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/brcm,stb-pcie.yaml > > Is this incorrect? That's correct and you are right - it passes the checks. Recent dtschema changed the logic behind this. I am not sure if the new approach will stay, I would find explicit minItems here more obvious and readable, so: resets: minItems: 1 items: - ......... - ......... - ......... - ......... > >> >>> + >>> + reset-names: >>> + items: >>> + - const: rescal >>> + - const: bridge >>> + - const: swinit >>> + - const: perst >> >> This does not match what you have in conditional, so just keep min and >> max Items here. > > I'm not sure what you mean. One chips uses a single reset, another > chip uses a different single reset, > and the third (7712) uses three of the four resets. Your conditional in allOf:if:then has different order. > > I was instructed to separate the descriptions from the rules, or at > least that's what I thought I was asked. >> >> >>> + >>> required: >>> - compatible >>> - reg >>> @@ -118,13 +133,10 @@ allOf: >>> then: >>> properties: >>> resets: >>> - items: >>> - - description: reset controller handling the PERST# signal >>> - >>> + minItems: 1 >> >> maxItems instead. Why three resets should be valid? > > See above. Note that I was just instructed to separate the rules from > the descriptions. > In doing so I placed all of the reset descripts on the top and then > the rules below. > There are four possible resets but no single chip uses all of them and > three chips > use one or three of them. > > Please advise. I don't understand that explanation. Why this particular variant works with 1, 2, 3 or 4 resets in the same time? Constraints are supposed to be precise / exact. Best regards, Krzysztof
