On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 09:06:34PM +0000, Conor.Dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On 20/06/2022 21:56, Serge Semin wrote:
> > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 18, 2022 at 01:30:28PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> >> From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> snps,dwc-ssi-1.01a has a single user - the Canaan k210, which uses a
> >> width of 4 for spi-{r,t}x-bus-width. Update the binding to reflect
> >> this.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> .../bindings/spi/snps,dw-apb-ssi.yaml | 48 ++++++++++++++-----
> >> 1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/snps,dw-apb-ssi.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/snps,dw-apb-ssi.yaml
> >> index e25d44c218f2..f2b9e3f062cd 100644
> >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/snps,dw-apb-ssi.yaml
> >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/snps,dw-apb-ssi.yaml
> >> @@ -135,19 +135,41 @@ properties:
> >> of the designware controller, and the upper limit is also subject to
> >> controller configuration.
> >>
> >> -patternProperties:
> >> - "^.*@[0-9a-f]+$":
> >> - type: object
> >> - properties:
> >> - reg:
> >> - minimum: 0
> >> - maximum: 3
> >> -
> >> - spi-rx-bus-width:
> >> - const: 1
> >> -
> >> - spi-tx-bus-width:
> >> - const: 1
> >> +if:
> >> + properties:
> >> + compatible:
> >> + contains:
> >> + const: snps,dwc-ssi-1.01a
> >> +
> >> +then:
> >> + patternProperties:
> >> + "^.*@[0-9a-f]+$":
> >> + type: object
> >> + properties:
> >> + reg:
> >> + minimum: 0
> >> + maximum: 3
> >> +
> >> + spi-rx-bus-width:
> >> + const: 4
> >> +
> >> + spi-tx-bus-width:
> >> + const: 4
> >> +
> >> +else:
> >> + patternProperties:
> >> + "^.*@[0-9a-f]+$":
> >> + type: object
> >> + properties:
> >> + reg:
> >> + minimum: 0
> >> + maximum: 3
> >> +
> >> + spi-rx-bus-width:
> >> + const: 1
> >> +
> >> + spi-tx-bus-width:
> >> + const: 1
> >
> > You can just use a more relaxed constraint "enum: [1 2 4 8]" here
>
> 8 too? sure.
Then no constraints needed because the common definition already has
this presumably.
Rob
