Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: pinctrl: stm32: add missing entries for gpio subnodes

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 23/09/2022 10:29, Alexandre TORGUE wrote:
> Hi Krzysztof
> 
> On 9/19/22 13:32, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 13/09/2022 09:46, Alexandre Torgue wrote:
>>> Add "interrupt-controller" and gpio-line-names to gpio subnodes in order to
>>> fix dtb validation.
>>
>> Rebase your patch on recent Linux kernel and use get_maintainers.pl.
> 
> I did it on 6.0-rc5 but yes I used your kernel.org address instead of 
> linaro ones. Sorry.
> 
>>
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/st,stm32-pinctrl.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/st,stm32-pinctrl.yaml
>>> index d35dcc4f0242..92582cccbb1b 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/st,stm32-pinctrl.yaml
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/st,stm32-pinctrl.yaml
>>> @@ -65,6 +65,10 @@ patternProperties:
>>>         '#gpio-cells':
>>>           const: 2
>>>   
>>> +      interrupt-controller: true
>>> +      '#interrupt-cells':
>>> +        const: 2
>>> +
>>>         reg:
>>>           maxItems: 1
>>>         clocks:
>>> @@ -80,6 +84,8 @@ patternProperties:
>>>           minimum: 1
>>>           maximum: 16
>>>   
>>> +      gpio-line-names: true
>>
>> maxItems?
> 
> Generic question, Is it mandatory to add maxItems information for all 
> entries ?

It's not mandatory for all. For some it is recommended, for some it does
not make sense. Here it's quite easy to add and it will validate the
entry. Any reason not to add it?

Best regards,
Krzysztof