Hi Krzysztof,
On Sun, Aug 18, 2024 at 7:29 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Properties with variable number of items per each device are expected to
> have widest constraints in top-level "properties:" block and further
> customized (narrowed) in "if:then:". Add missing top-level constraints
> for clocks.
>
> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks for your patch!
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/renesas,sdhi.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/renesas,sdhi.yaml
> @@ -77,9 +77,13 @@ properties:
> minItems: 1
> maxItems: 3
>
> - clocks: true
> + clocks:
> + minItems: 1
> + maxItems: 4
>
> - clock-names: true
> + clock-names:
> + minItems: 1
> + maxItems: 4
>
> dmas:
> minItems: 4
I am a bit puzzled by all these add-top-level-constraint patches.
E.g. this file already constrains all of them below.
To me, it feels the same as a patch for driver code that would do:
+ if (param < 16 || param > 512)
+ return -EINVAL;
+
if (hw_variant_a) {
if (param < 16 || param > 256)
return -EINVAL;
...
} else if (hw_variant_b) {
if (param < 32 || param > 512)
return -EINVAL;
...
} else /* hw_variant_c */ {
if (param < 32 || param > 384)
return -EINVAL;
...
}
What's the point?
Thanks!
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
