Hi Krzysztof, Thanks for the feedback. > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/6] dt-bindings: can: sja1000: Convert to json- > schema > > On 04/07/2022 11:03, Biju Das wrote: > > Hi Krystof, > > > > Thanks for the feedback. > > > >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/6] dt-bindings: can: sja1000: Convert to > >> json- schema > >> > >> On 04/07/2022 09:50, Biju Das wrote: > >>> Convert the NXP SJA1000 CAN Controller Device Tree binding > >>> documentation to json-schema. > >>> > >>> Update the example to match reality. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Biju Das <biju.das.jz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> --- > >>> v2->v3: > >>> * Added reg-io-width is a required property for technologic,sja1000 > >>> * Removed enum type from nxp,tx-output-config and updated the > >> description > >>> for combination of TX0 and TX1. > >>> * Updated the example > >>> v1->v2: > >>> * Moved $ref: can-controller.yaml# to top along with if conditional > >>> to > >>> avoid multiple mapping issues with the if conditional in the > >> subsequent > >>> patch. > >>> --- > >>> .../bindings/net/can/nxp,sja1000.yaml | 103 > ++++++++++++++++++ > >>> .../devicetree/bindings/net/can/sja1000.txt | 58 ---------- > >>> 2 files changed, 103 insertions(+), 58 deletions(-) create mode > >>> 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/nxp,sja1000.yaml > >>> delete mode 100644 > >>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/sja1000.txt > >>> > >>> diff --git > >>> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/nxp,sja1000.yaml > >>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/nxp,sja1000.yaml > >>> new file mode 100644 > >>> index 000000000000..d34060226e4e > >>> --- /dev/null > >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/nxp,sja1000.yaml > >>> @@ -0,0 +1,103 @@ > >>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) %YAML 1.2 > >>> +--- > >>> +$id: > >>> + > >>> +title: Memory mapped SJA1000 CAN controller from NXP (formerly > >>> +Philips) > >>> + > >>> +maintainers: > >>> + - Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> + > >>> +allOf: > >>> + - $ref: can-controller.yaml# > >>> + - if: > >> > >> The advice of moving it up was not correct. The allOf containing ref > >> and if:then goes to place like in example-schema, so before > >> additional/unevaluatedProperties at the bottom. > >> > >> Please do not introduce some inconsistent style. > > > > There are some examples like[1], where allOf is at the top. > > [1] =Mw4Fhkri5BLK1Cqg8Wd1EKkbe0xDg%2Fnbl0JSd5j6Kmo%3D&reser > > ved=0 > > And they are wrong. There is always some incorrect code in the kernel, > but that's not argument to do it in incorrect way. The coding style is > here expressed in example-schema, so use this as an argument. OK. Will stick to example-schema as coding style. Cheers, Biju
