On 25/10/2024 20:22, Karan Sanghavi wrote:
>>> +
>>> +examples:
>>> + - |
>>> + power: power {
>>
>> Drop label. Node name: power-controller
>>
>> I don't think this passes tests because of this. See power-domain.yaml
>> schema.
>>
>
> Below code is from bcm2711-rpi-4-b.dts decompiled from the dtb file.
Uh? Why would we ever care about decompiling some DTBs?
>
> firmware {
> compatible = "raspberrypi,bcm2835-firmware\0simple-mfd";
> mboxes = <0x1d>;
> phandle = <0x1e>;
> ...
> };
>
> power {
> compatible = "raspberrypi,bcm2835-power";
> firmware = <0x1e>;
> #power-domain-cells = <0x01>;
> phandle = <0x0b>;
> };
>
> I had a doubt that as above the raspberrypi,bcm2835-power compatible node
> is defined with power keyword, so should I still rename the node as
> power-controll or keep it has power?
I don't understand your arguments. Schema expects this to have proper
name (see bindings). DT spec as well.
>
> Also it does passes the dt_binding_check and CHECK_DTBS=y broadcom/bcm2711-rpi-4-b.dtb
> but does gives the message as
> soc: power: 'ranges' is a required property
> so do I need to add the range property here?
I have no clue what you are testing here. We do not care about some out
of tree DTB. And if you ask about upstream, then take conversions tasks
after reading this:
https://social.kernel.org/notice/Ai9hYRUKo8suzX3zNY
BTW, your patch has patch errors which *have to be fixed* as well. Apply
your patch to see them. Run checkpatch.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
