Hi Rob, Krzysztof,
On 24/09/2024 11:12, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 10:38:03AM +0200, Neil Armstrong wrote:
In preparation of supporting the mmc-slot subnode, allow
the nodename to be either mmc@ or mmc-slot@
Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/mmc-controller.yaml | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/mmc-controller.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/mmc-controller.yaml
index 58ae298cd2fc..f797c32ea688 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/mmc-controller.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/mmc-controller.yaml
@@ -20,7 +20,9 @@ description: |
properties:
$nodename:
- pattern: "^mmc(@.*)?$"
+ oneOf:
+ - pattern: "^mmc(@.*)?$"
+ - pattern: "^slot(@.*)?$"
I don't think mmc-slot is allowed by this.
This should be squashed with mmc-slot child patch. It does not make
sense to allow mmc-slots if there are no mmc-slots.
Right, I don't like this oneOf/pattern, slot@(@.*)? should really only be for slots,
by I do not see how this can be achieved because we can't override properties: pattern.
Do you have any suggestions ?
Neil
Best regards,
Krzysztof
