On 19:30-20210506, Vignesh Raghavendra wrote: > Convert i2c-omap.txt to YAML schema for better checks and documentation. > > Following properties were used in DT but were not documented in txt > bindings and has been included in YAML schema: > 1. Include ti,am4372-i2c compatible > 2. Include dmas property used in few OMAP dts files > 3. Document clocks property > > Signed-off-by: Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@xxxxxx> > --- > v2: > Fix issues with make dt_bindings_check > Add description on usage of ti,hwmods > please add a link to V1 to be nice to folks like me coming in for a review at the point on v2 patch ;) https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/?q=i2c-omap was'nt too helpful either :( > .../devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-omap.txt | 37 --------- > .../devicetree/bindings/i2c/ti,omap4-i2c.yaml | 80 +++++++++++++++++++ > 2 files changed, 80 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-) > delete mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-omap.txt > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/ti,omap4-i2c.yaml > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-omap.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-omap.txt > deleted file mode 100644 > index a425b91af48f..000000000000 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-omap.txt > +++ /dev/null > @@ -1,37 +0,0 @@ > -I2C for OMAP platforms > - > -Required properties : > -- compatible : Must be > - "ti,omap2420-i2c" for OMAP2420 SoCs > - "ti,omap2430-i2c" for OMAP2430 SoCs > - "ti,omap3-i2c" for OMAP3 SoCs > - "ti,omap4-i2c" for OMAP4+ SoCs > - "ti,am654-i2c", "ti,omap4-i2c" for AM654 SoCs > - "ti,j721e-i2c", "ti,omap4-i2c" for J721E SoCs > - "ti,am64-i2c", "ti,omap4-i2c" for AM64 SoCs > -- ti,hwmods : Must be "i2c<n>", n being the instance number (1-based) > -- #address-cells = <1>; > -- #size-cells = <0>; > - > -Recommended properties : > -- clock-frequency : Desired I2C bus clock frequency in Hz. Otherwise > - the default 100 kHz frequency will be used. > - > -Optional properties: > -- Child nodes conforming to i2c bus binding > - > -Note: Current implementation will fetch base address, irq and dma > -from omap hwmod data base during device registration. > -Future plan is to migrate hwmod data base contents into device tree > -blob so that, all the required data will be used from device tree dts > -file. > - > -Examples : > - > -i2c1: i2c@0 { > - compatible = "ti,omap3-i2c"; > - #address-cells = <1>; > - #size-cells = <0>; > - ti,hwmods = "i2c1"; > - clock-frequency = <400000>; > -}; > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/ti,omap4-i2c.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/ti,omap4-i2c.yaml > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..eb11e3025b37 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/ti,omap4-i2c.yaml > @@ -0,0 +1,80 @@ > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) > +%YAML 1.2 > +--- > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/i2c/ti,omap4-i2c.yaml# > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# > + > +title: Bindings for I2C controllers on TI's OMAP and K3 SoCs > + > +maintainers: > + - Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@xxxxxx> > + > +allOf: > + - $ref: /schemas/i2c/i2c-controller.yaml# > + > +properties: > + compatible: > + oneOf: > + - const: ti,omap2420-i2c > + - const: ti,omap2430-i2c > + - const: ti,omap3-i2c > + - const: ti,omap4-i2c > + - items: > + - enum: > + - ti,am4372-i2c > + - ti,am64-i2c > + - ti,am654-i2c > + - ti,j721e-i2c > + - const: ti,omap4-i2c > + > + ti,hwmods: > + description: > + (DEPRECATED) Must be "i2c<n>", n being the instance number (1-based). > + This property is applicable only on legacy platforms mainly omap2/3 > + and ti81xx and should not be used on other platforms. > + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/string > + items: > + - pattern: "^i2c([1-9])$" https://lore.kernel.org/linux-devicetree/YJJGsGXBz56Nhe8z@xxxxxxxxxxx/ Can we control it with if? > + > + dmas: > + minItems: 1 > + maxItems: 2 > + > + dma-names: > + items: > + - const: tx > + - const: rx > + > + reg: > + maxItems: 1 > + > + interrupts: > + maxItems: 1 > + > + clocks: > + maxItems: 1 > + > + clock-names: > + const: fck > + > + clock-frequency: true > + > +required: > + - compatible > + - reg > + - interrupts > + > +unevaluatedProperties: false I wonder if we should go with additionalProperties: false instead of unevaluatedProperties.. For example: > + > +examples: > + - | > + #include <dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/irq.h> > + #include <dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/arm-gic.h> > + > + main_i2c0: i2c@2000000 { > + compatible = "ti,j721e-i2c", "ti,omap4-i2c"; > + reg = <0x2000000 0x100>; > + interrupts = <GIC_SPI 200 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>; If I add a ridiculous property system-controller; -> no problems what so ever.. > + #address-cells = <1>; > + #size-cells = <0>; > + }; > -- > 2.31.1 > -- Regards, Nishanth Menon Key (0xDDB5849D1736249D) / Fingerprint: F8A2 8693 54EB 8232 17A3 1A34 DDB5 849D 1736 249D
