On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 5:15 PM Jishnu Prakash <jprakash@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Amit, > > On 4/3/2020 5:34 PM, Amit Kucheria wrote: > > > >> +required: > >> + - compatible > >> + - reg > >> + - '#address-cells' > >> + - '#size-cells' > >> + - '#io-channel-cells' > >> + > >> +patternProperties: > >> + "^[a-z0-9-_@]$": > >> + type: object > >> + description: | > >> + Represents the external channels which are connected to the ADC. > >> + For compatible property "qcom,spmi-vadc" following channels, also known as > >> + reference point channels, are used for result calibration and their channel > >> + configuration nodes should be defined: > >> + VADC_REF_625MV and/or VADC_SPARE1(based on PMIC version) VADC_REF_1250MV, > >> + VADC_GND_REF and VADC_VDD_VADC. > > Instead of this note for "qcom,spmi-vadc", you can enforce this > > through checks in YAML grammar. > > > > A simple example can be found in > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/qcom-tsens.yaml. Look for > > the if, then, else clause which determines how many interrupts need to > > be defined. > > I have gone through tsens and other examples, but I'm not able to get a > way to apply this kind of constraint, on what child nodes should be present. > > In this case, the constraint would have to be that for compatible > property "qcom,spmi-vadc", there should be at least four child nodes and > those four should have their "reg" property fixed to the channel values > mentioned above. I can see how to apply constraints on a single property > like interrupts in tsens, but I'm not sure if there is a way to specify > a lower limit to the number of child nodes or something like "there > should be at least one child node with value 0x9 for its "reg" > property". I could not find any examples with constraints placed on > number of occurrences of a child node. > > Can you please share an example of such a constraint if you are aware of > any or suggest some way by which this kind of constraint can be specified? Hi Jishnu, I misread that particular property. I don't think it is possible to specify child nodes w/o splitting this binding into two, I think. Please go ahead with the rest of changes. I'll keep digging to see if this is possible. Regards, Amit
