On 28/05/2024 13:16, Andreas Kemnade wrote:
> On Tue, 28 May 2024 12:04:22 +0200
> Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On 28/05/2024 08:57, Andreas Kemnade wrote:
>>> Convert the regulator bindings to yaml files. To allow only the regulator
>>> compatible corresponding to the toplevel mfd compatible, split the file
>>> into one per device.
>>>
>>> To not need to allow any subnode name, specify clearly node names
>>> for all the regulators.
>>>
>>> Drop one twl5030 compatible due to no documentation on mfd side and no
>>> users of the twl5030.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Andreas Kemnade <andreas@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> Reason for being RFC:
>>> the integration into ti,twl.yaml seems not to work as expected
>>> make dt_binding_check crashes without any clear error message
>>> if used on the ti,twl.yaml
>>>
>>> .../devicetree/bindings/mfd/ti,twl.yaml | 4 +-
>>> .../regulator/ti,twl4030-regulator.yaml | 402 ++++++++++++++++++
>>> .../regulator/ti,twl6030-regulator.yaml | 292 +++++++++++++
>>> .../regulator/ti,twl6032-regulator.yaml | 238 +++++++++++
>>> .../bindings/regulator/twl-regulator.txt | 80 ----
>>> 5 files changed, 935 insertions(+), 81 deletions(-)
>>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/ti,twl4030-regulator.yaml
>>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/ti,twl6030-regulator.yaml
>>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/ti,twl6032-regulator.yaml
>>> delete mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/twl-regulator.txt
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/ti,twl.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/ti,twl.yaml
>>> index c2357fecb56cc..4ced6e471d338 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/ti,twl.yaml
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/ti,twl.yaml
>>> @@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ allOf:
>>> properties:
>>> compatible:
>>> const: ti,twl4030-wdt
>>> -
>>> + $ref: /schemas/regulator/ti,twl4030-regulator.yaml
>>
>> That's not needed, just like othehr refs below.
>>
> but how to prevent error messages like this:
>
> arch/arm/boot/dts/ti/omap/omap2430-sdp.dtb: twl@48: Unevaluated properties are not allowed ('gpio', 'keypad', 'pwm', 'pwmled', 'regulator-vaux1', 'regulator-vaux2', 'regulator-vaux3', 'regulator-vaux4', 'regulator-vdac', 'regulator-vdd1', 'regulator-vintana1', 'regulator-vintana2', 'regulator-vintdig', 'regulator-vio', 'regulator-vmmc1', 'regulator-vmmc2', 'regulator-vpll1', 'regulator-vpll2', 'regulator-vsim', 'regulator-vusb1v5', 'regulator-vusb1v8', 'regulator-vusb3v1
>
> esp. the regulator parts without adding stuff to ti,twl.yaml?
Eh? That's a watchdog, not regulator. Why do you add ref to regulator?
...
>>> +
>>> + regulator-vaux2:
>>> + type: object
>>> + $ref: regulator.yaml#
>>> + unevaluatedProperties: false
>>> + properties:
>>> + compatible:
>>> + const: "ti,twl4030-vaux2"
>>> +
>>> + regulator-initial-mode:
>>> + items:
>>> + - items:
>>> + enum:
>>> + - 0x08 # Sleep mode, the nominal output voltage is maintained
>>> + # with low power consumption with low load current capability
>>> + - 0x0e # Active mode, the regulator can deliver its nominal output
>>> + # voltage with full-load current capability
>>
>> These entries are the same. Just use patternProperties and enum for
>> compatible.
>>
> hmm, if I am using that, how do I prevent e.g. constructions like this to be
> valid?
>
> regulator-vaux2 {
> compatible = "ti,twl4030-vaux1";
> };
>
Why would node name matter if you have compatible? The entire point of
compatibles is to not to rely on node names.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
