On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 01:02:26PM +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > On 16/12/2024 10:32, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 08:58:49AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >> On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 04:02:59PM +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > >>> From: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> > >>> The binding is missing maxItems for all renesas,cmms and renesas,vsps > >>> properties. As the amount of cmms or vsps is always a fixed amount, set > >>> the maxItems to match the minItems. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> --- > >>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/renesas,du.yaml | 10 ++++++++++ > >>> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+) > >> > >> The top level property should define widest constraints as well. > > > > I'm curious, why is that ? I understand why a top-level default would > > make sense when it's optionally overridden by model-specific values, but > > in this case there's no such default. Every SoC has its own fixed value. > > Looking at the file, shouldn't we have minItems == maxItems for > interrupts and resets too? Well, I guess for interrupts we could in > theory run with just some of the interrupt lines connected. I'm not sure > if that's the case for resets. Unless there's some magic handling of min/maxItems for those that I wouldn't be aware of, I think it makes sense. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart
