Hi, On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 2:01 PM Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 3:23 PM Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > The 'qcom,gcc.yaml' file failed self-validation (dt_binding_check) > > because it required a property to be either (3 entries big), > > (3 entries big), or (7 entries big), but not more than one of those > > things. That didn't make a ton of sense. > > > > This patch splits all of the exceptional device trees (AKA those that > > would have needed if/then/else rules) from qcom,gcc.yaml. It also > > cleans up some cruft found while doing that. > > > > After this lands, this worked for me atop clk-next: > > for f in \ > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,gcc-apq8064.yaml \ > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,gcc-ipq8074.yaml \ > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,gcc-msm8996.yaml \ > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,gcc-msm8998.yaml \ > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,gcc-qcs404.yaml \ > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,gcc-sc7180.yaml \ > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,gcc-sm8150.yaml \ > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,gcc.yaml; do \ > > ARCH=arm64 make dt_binding_check DT_SCHEMA_FILES=$f; \ > > ARCH=arm64 make dtbs_check DT_SCHEMA_FILES=$f; \ > > done > > Note that using DT_SCHEMA_FILES may hide some errors in examples as > all other schemas (including the core ones) are not used for > validation. So just 'make dt_binding_check' needs to pass (ignoring > any other unrelated errors as it breaks frequently). Supposedly a > patch is coming explaining this in the documentation. That seems like it's going to be a huge pain going forward, but OK. I kept running "dtbs_check" with the DT_SCHEMA_FILES since I guess this was OK? Then I ran this atop next-20200129: # Delete broken yaml: rm Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/intel-gw-pcie.yaml ARCH=arm64 make dt_binding_check | grep 'clock/qcom' ...and that seemed OK to me. I've updated the commit message to include what I did. Hopefully it's right. > > + nvmem-cell-names: > > + minItems: 1 > > + maxItems: 2 > > + description: > > + Names for each nvmem-cells specified. > > Isn't that every instance? So drop. Dropped the description here. > Otherwise, assuming it all works: > > Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> Thanks. v2 now with your feedback and Jeffrey's at: http://lore.kernel.org/r/20200129152458.v2.1.I4452dc951d7556ede422835268742b25a18b356b@changeid
