On 03/02/2025 14:03, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> On 2.02.2025 3:35 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 01/02/2025 16:56, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>> On 27.01.2025 9:26 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On Sat, Jan 25, 2025 at 04:31:18AM +0100, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>>>> From: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>
>>>>> (Almost?) all QMP PHYs come with both a "full reset" ("phy") and a
>>>>> "retain certain registers" one ("phy_nocsr").
>>>>>
>>>>> Drop the maxItems=1 constraint for resets and reset_names as we go
>>>>> ahead and straighten out the DT usage. After that's done (which
>>>>> will involve modifying some clock drivers etc.), we may set
>>>>> *min*Items to 2, bar some possible exceptions.
>>>>
>>>> You drop minItems now, so that's a bit confusing. If all devices have
>>>> two resets, just change in top-level resets the minItems -> 2 now and
>>>> mention that it does not affect the ABI, because Linux will support
>>>> missing reset and it describes the hardware more accurately.
>>>
>>> This will generate a ton of warnings and resolving them may take an
>>> additional cycle, as I'd need to get things merged through clk too,
>>> so I thought this is a good transitional solution
>>
>> I still don't understand why existing devices now get 1 reset, while
>> previously they had minItems:2.
>
> Hm, right..
>
> Would it make sense to just remove the else: branch?
Yes, I guess that's what you want to achieve here.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
