Hi Krzysztof On Sun, Aug 27, 2023 at 09:56:06AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 26/08/2023 23:04, Serge Semin wrote: > >> + clock-names: > >> + items: > >> + - const: stmmaceth > > > > clock-names: > > const: stmmaceth > > ? > > The existing syntax is correct. This is a string array. Could you please clarify whether it's a requirement (always specify items: property for an array) or just an acceptable option (another one is suggested in my comment)? I am asking because: 1. In this case the "clock-names" array is supposed to have only one item. Directly setting "const: stmmaceth" with no items: property shall simplify it. 2. There are single-entry "clock-names" property in the DT-bindings defined as I suggested. 3. There is a "compatible" property which is also a string array but it can be defined as I suggested (omitting the items property). so based on all of that using the "items:"-based constraint here seems redundant. Am I wrong to think like that? If so in what aspect? -Serge(y) > > > > >> + > >> + interrupts: > >> + maxItems: 1 > >> + > > > >> + interrupt-names: > >> + items: > >> + - const: macirq > > > > interrupt-names: > > const: macirq > > ? > > As well. > > > > >> + > >> + loongson,ls1-syscon: > >> + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/phandle > >> + description: > >> + Phandle to the syscon containing some extra configurations > >> + including PHY interface mode. > >> + > > > >> + phy-mode: > >> + items: > >> + - enum: > >> + - mii > >> + - rmii > > > > phy-mode: > > enum: ... > > ? > > Here indeed, this is a string, not a list, so items are wrong. > > > > Best regards, > Krzysztof >
