Quoting Konrad Dybcio (2025-01-09 06:05:14) > On 8.01.2025 2:28 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > Document the Qualcomm SC7180 System on a Chip (SoC). This SoC is made up > > of multiple devices that have their own bindings, therefore this binding > > is for a "bus" that is the SoC node. > > > > TODO: Document all child nodes. This is woefully incomplete but at least > > shows what is involved with describing an SoC node in dt schema. > > I'm not sure I'm a fan, because... > > [...] > > > + > > +properties: > > + compatible: > > + items: > > + - const: qcom,soc-sc7180 > > + - const: simple-bus > > + > > + '#address-cells': > > + const: 2 > > + > > + '#size-cells': > > + const: 2 > > + > > + clock-controller@100000: > > + $ref: /schemas/clock/qcom,gcc-sc7180.yaml# > > + > > + watchdog@17c10000: > > + $ref: /schemas/watchdog/qcom-wdt.yaml# > > + > > +required: > > + - compatible > > + - '#address-cells' > > + - '#size-cells' > > + - clock-controller@100000 > > + - watchdog@17c10000 > > + > > +additionalProperties: false > > ..this approach will make any dt node addition under /soc require > an additional bindings change, which sounds like absolute madness We should pretty much know what nodes go under here though, because it's a chip that exists and doesn't change after the fact. I agree that it will be annoying during early development when everyone is modifying the same file to add their node, but that problem also exists with the dts files today so it doesn't seem like total madness. It's also nice to be able to look at one file and quickly find all the schemas for the SoC used, like a table of contents almost or a memory map for the chip. One thing that I find annoying is that you have to put the whole soc node and child nodes in the example. Maybe we can omit the example because there are so many child nodes. > > I think additionalProperties: true would be sufficient here, like in > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/imx/imx8m-soc.yaml > Ok. That binding looks to be for the efuse properties of the SoC node itself? I was hoping to find another example of this "describe the whole SoC" sort of binding but that doesn't match. Is there one already out there? Should I move this binding to bindings/soc/qcom instead of bindings/bus?
