On 11/7/2022 10:28 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 07/11/2022 15:36, Georgi Djakov wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 2.11.22 23:11, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> On 31/10/2022 19:29, Melody Olvera wrote: >>>> >>>> On 10/27/2022 8:29 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>>> On 26/10/2022 15:05, Melody Olvera wrote: >>>>>> Many of the *-virt compatible devices do not have a reg field >>>>>> so remove it as required from the bindings. >>>>> and some virt have it... This should be probably separate binding or if >>>>> the list is small - allOf:if:then. >>>> I attempted this; however I'm still seeing failures in dtb_check. I've added this >>>> to the binding; does this look correct? >>>> allOf: >>>> - $ref: qcom,rpmh-common.yaml# >>>> + - if: >>>> + properties: >>>> + compatible: >>>> + contains: >>>> + enum: >>>> + - qcom,qdu1000-clk-virt >>>> + - qcom,qdu1000-mc-virt >>>> + >>>> + then: >>>> + required: >>>> + - compatible >>> No, because we talk about reg, not compatible. You should not require >>> reg instead for some compatibles... but then the schema is getting >>> complicated. >>> >>> It's difficult to give you recommendation because I do not know what are >>> all these "virt" interconnects. Why some have unit address, why some do not? >> My understanding is that the "reg" property is required for the NoCs that have >> registers for controlling the QoS settings for the ports from Linux side. >> Other NoCs might be controlled by some remote processor and direct access from >> Linux may not be possible, so they do not have unit address and are outside of >> the soc DT node. >> Do we need to strictly define when exactly the "reg" property is required, >> can't we just mark it as optional? > It's preferred to make it strictly required or not allowed, so the > bindings are specific. This also allows to validate for mistakes. It > would be a bit different case if such test for req would make the > bindings complicated. I think it's not the case because we could just > split the bindings into two files: > 1. One for controlled by AP, with reg. > 2. One for controller by remote processors, without reg. > Sounds good. Will drop this change and add a new binding document. Thanks, Melody
