On 27/08/2023 23:01, Serge Semin wrote: > 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? Syntax is correct in both cases. However the single list compatible *cannot grow*, while single list clock might, when developer notices that the binding was incomplete. People add binding matching drivers, not the hardware, thus having incomplete list of clocks is happening all the time. Best regards, Krzysztof
