On 11/07/2023 11:39, Praveenkumar I wrote: > > On 7/11/2023 1:40 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 10/07/2023 12:37, Praveenkumar I wrote: >>> Add TSENS V2 calibration nvmem cells for IPQ5332 >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Praveenkumar I <quic_ipkumar@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> .../bindings/thermal/qcom-tsens.yaml | 26 +++++++++++++++++-- >>> 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/qcom-tsens.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/qcom-tsens.yaml >>> index 27e9e16e6455..8b7863c3989e 100644 >>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/qcom-tsens.yaml >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/qcom-tsens.yaml >>> @@ -91,7 +91,7 @@ properties: >>> maxItems: 2 >>> >>> nvmem-cells: >>> - oneOf: >>> + anyOf: >>> - minItems: 1 >>> maxItems: 2 >>> description: >>> @@ -106,9 +106,13 @@ properties: >>> description: | >>> Reference to nvmem cells for the calibration mode, two calibration >>> bases and two cells per each sensor, main and backup copies, plus use_backup cell >>> + - maxItems: 17 >>> + description: | >>> + V2 of TSENS, reference to nvmem cells for the calibration mode, two calibration >>> + bases and one cell per each sensor >> I think this is already included in one of the previous entries. >> Otherwise, are you sure that all new devices will have exactly 17 entries? > Previous entries does not support TSENS version 2.X.X QFPROM. TSENS V2 > QFPROM has mode, base0, base1 and s[0-15]+_offset. > Ideally it should be like, > - minItems: 4 > - maxItems: 19 I see it covered: minItems: 5 maxItems: 35 I think 17 is between 5 and 35. > But dt binding check fails in oneOf / anyOf condition. So added the > IPQ5332 properties which is exactly 17. >> >>> >>> nvmem-cell-names: >>> - oneOf: >>> + anyOf: >>> - minItems: 1 >>> items: >>> - const: calib >>> @@ -205,6 +209,24 @@ properties: >>> - const: s9_p2_backup >>> - const: s10_p1_backup >>> - const: s10_p2_backup >>> + - items: >>> + - const: mode >>> + - const: base0 >>> + - const: base1 >>> + - const: s0_offset >>> + - const: s3_offset >>> + - const: s4_offset >>> + - const: s5_offset >>> + - const: s6_offset >>> + - const: s7_offset >>> + - const: s8_offset >>> + - const: s9_offset >>> + - const: s10_offset >>> + - const: s11_offset >>> + - const: s12_offset >>> + - const: s13_offset >>> + - const: s14_offset >>> + - const: s15_offset >> Don't introduce new naming style. Existing uses s[0-9]+, without offset >> suffix. Why this should be different? > As I mentioned above, s[0-9]+_p1 / s[0-9]+p2 is for TSENS V1. TSENS V2 > QFPROM layout is different from the existing one. I know, I did not write about p1/p2. > I would like to add mode, base0, base1 and 16 patterns > '^s[0-15]+_offset$'. But DT binding check is failing in oneOf/ anyOf > condintion. This does not explain why you need different style - this "offset" suffix. Best regards, Krzysztof
