On 18/08/2024 19:37, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > Hi Krzysztof, > > Thank you for the patch. > > On Sun, Aug 18, 2024 at 07:29:36PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> Properties with variable number of items per each device are expected to >> have widest constraints in top-level "properties:" block and further >> customized (narrowed) in "if:then:". Add missing top-level constraints >> for clocks and clock-names. > > In this specific case I think it's fine, but generally speaking, how do > you handle that rule when different variants have completely different > clocks, not just lack some of the clocks ? I don't understand the problem. We handle it as usual, as in all bindings. Here there is no such case, thus names go to the top. >> >> - clock-names: true >> + clock-names: >> + items: >> + - const: aclk >> + - const: pclk >> + - const: vclk >> >> iommus: >> maxItems: 1 >> @@ -71,11 +77,6 @@ allOf: >> - description: Main clock >> - description: Register access clock >> - description: Video clock >> - clock-names: >> - items: >> - - const: aclk >> - - const: pclk >> - - const: vclk > > Any specific reason to move the clock names but not the descriptions ? > The assymetry bothers me. The other variant does not have description of the first clock, so moving it would be incorrect. Moving names is correct, because other variant does not have clock-names at all. Best regards, Krzysztof
