On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 05:27:13PM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote: > They have not been added so far. dtbs_check complains loudly. > > Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/atmel-at91.yaml | 8 ++++++++ > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/atmel-at91.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/atmel-at91.yaml > index 0ec29366e6c2..42469a054a60 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/atmel-at91.yaml > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/atmel-at91.yaml > @@ -23,6 +23,9 @@ properties: > - const: atmel,at91rm9200 > - items: > - enum: > + - calao,usb-a9260 > + - calao,usb-a9263 > + - calao,usb-a9g20 I don't undertstand why calao,usb-a9g20 or existing olimex,sam9-l9260 can be fitted with any SoC. If that's expected, mention in commit msg. If not, then this needs to be fixed, not grew. > - olimex,sam9-l9260 > - enum: > - atmel,at91sam9260 > @@ -35,6 +38,11 @@ properties: > - atmel,at91sam9xe > - atmel,at91sam9x60 > - const: atmel,at91sam9 Line break. > + - items: > + - const: calao,usb-a9g20-lpw > + - const: calao,usb-a9g20 > + - const: atmel,at91sam9g20 > + - const: atmel,at91sam9 Best regards, Krzysztof
