Hey Justin, On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 04:27:12PM -0700, Justin Chen wrote: > On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 3:55 PM Conor Dooley <conor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 02:53:43PM -0700, Justin Chen wrote: > > > > > + compatible: > > > + enum: > > > + - brcm,asp-v2.0 > > > + - brcm,bcm72165-asp > > > + - brcm,asp-v2.1 > > > + - brcm,bcm74165-asp > > > > > + compatible = "brcm,bcm72165-asp", "brcm,asp-v2.0"; > > > > You can't do this, as Rob's bot has pointed out. Please test the > > bindings :( You need one of these type of constructs: > > > > compatible: > > oneOf: > > - items: > > - const: brcm,bcm72165-asp > > - const: brcm,asp-v2.0 > > - items: > > - const: brcm,bcm74165-asp > > - const: brcm,asp-v2.1 > > > > Although, given either you or Florian said there are likely to be > > multiple parts, going for an enum, rather than const for the brcm,bcm.. > > entry will prevent some churn. Up to you. > > > Urg so close. Thought it was a trivial change, so didn't bother > retesting the binding. I think I have it right now... > > compatible: > oneOf: > - items: > - enum: > - brcm,bcm72165-asp > - brcm,bcm74165-asp > - enum: > - brcm,asp-v2.0 > - brcm,asp-v2.1 > > Something like this look good? I am still caffeine-less, but this implies that both of "brcm,bcm72165-asp", "brcm,asp-v2.0" _and_ "brcm,bcm72165-asp", "brcm,asp-v2.1" are. I suspect that that is not the case, unless "brcm,asp-v2.0" is a valid fallback for "brcm,asp-v2.1"? The oneOf: also becomes redundant since you only have one items:. > Will submit a v5 tomorrow. BTW, when you do, could you use the address listed in MAINTAINERS rather than the one you used for this version? Cheers, Conor.
