On 4/9/24 15:09, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 09/04/2024 21:08, Alexandru Gagniuc wrote:
The IPQ9574 gen3x2 PHY is very similar to IPQ6018. It requires two
extra clocks named "anoc" and "snoc". Document this, and add a
new compatible string for this PHY.
Signed-off-by: Alexandru Gagniuc <mr.nuke.me@xxxxxxxxx>
---
.../phy/qcom,ipq8074-qmp-pcie-phy.yaml | 31 ++++++++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/qcom,ipq8074-qmp-pcie-phy.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/qcom,ipq8074-qmp-pcie-phy.yaml
index 634cec5d57ea..017ad65a9a3c 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/qcom,ipq8074-qmp-pcie-phy.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/qcom,ipq8074-qmp-pcie-phy.yaml
@@ -19,19 +19,22 @@ properties:
- qcom,ipq6018-qmp-pcie-phy
- qcom,ipq8074-qmp-gen3-pcie-phy
- qcom,ipq8074-qmp-pcie-phy
+ - qcom,ipq9574-qmp-gen3x2-pcie-phy
reg:
items:
- description: serdes
clocks:
- maxItems: 3
+ minItems: 3
Which binding inspired you to such change? No, you need maxItems. See
your previous patches here how it is done.
clock-names:
items:
- const: aux
- const: cfg_ahb
- const: pipe
+ - const: anoc
+ - const: snoc
OK, you did not test it. Neither this, nor DTS. I stop review, please
test first.
I ran both `checkpatch.pl` and `make dt_binding_check`. What in this
patch makes you say I "did not test it", and what test or tests did I miss?
Alex
