On 13/02/2025 12:04, Swathi K S wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> >> Sent: 13 February 2025 13:24 >> To: Swathi K S <swathi.ks@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: krzk+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; andrew+netdev@xxxxxxx; davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; >> edumazet@xxxxxxxxxx; kuba@xxxxxxxxxx; pabeni@xxxxxxxxxx; >> robh@xxxxxxxxxx; conor+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; richardcochran@xxxxxxxxx; >> mcoquelin.stm32@xxxxxxxxx; alexandre.torgue@xxxxxxxxxxx; >> rmk+kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; >> devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-stm32@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; >> linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] dt-bindings: net: Add FSD EQoS device tree >> bindings >> >> On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 10:16:23AM +0530, Swathi K S wrote: >>> + clock-names: >>> + minItems: 5 >>> + maxItems: 10 >>> + contains: >>> + enum: >>> + - ptp_ref >>> + - master_bus >>> + - slave_bus >>> + - tx >>> + - rx >>> + - master2_bus >>> + - slave2_bus >>> + - eqos_rxclk_mux >>> + - eqos_phyrxclk >>> + - dout_peric_rgmii_clk >> >> This does not match the previous entry. It should be strictly ordered with >> minItems: 5. > > Hi Krzysztof, > Thanks for reviewing. > In FSD SoC, we have 2 instances of ethernet in two blocks. > One instance needs 5 clocks and the other needs 10 clocks. I understand and I do not think this is contradictory to what I asked. If it is, then why/how? > > I tried to understand this by looking at some other dt-binding files as given below, but looks like they follow similar approach > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/stm32-dwmac.yaml > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/rockchip-dwmac.yaml > > Could you please guide me on how to implement this? > Also, please help me understand what is meant by 'strictly ordered' Every other 99% of bindings. Just like your clocks property. Best regards, Krzysztof
