Am Fri, 20 Sep 2024 19:51:25 -0500 schrieb Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>: > On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 12:47:22PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > On 18/09/2024 10:41, Andreas Kemnade wrote: > > > Also the TWL603X devices have a charger, so allow to specify it > > > here. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Andreas Kemnade <andreas@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > .../devicetree/bindings/mfd/ti,twl.yaml | 18 > > > ++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/ti,twl.yaml > > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/ti,twl.yaml index > > > e94b0fd7af0f8..4064a228cb0fc 100644 --- > > > a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/ti,twl.yaml +++ > > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/ti,twl.yaml @@ -105,6 > > > +105,11 @@ allOf: regulator-initial-mode: false > > > > > > properties: > > > + bci: > > > > charger > > > > > + type: object > > > > additionalProperties: true > > Thinking again. Why additionalProperties? unevaluatedProperties looks more reasonable for me. There are additional properties but they should be evaluated by another schema. > > Each node must end with additionalProperties or unevaluated. I > > think you never tested it, because dtschema reports this. > > This is under an if/then schema is why there's no errors. > and then it just accepts anything with compatible twl6032-charger e.g. and does not care about anything in patch 2, because it has a different compatible. > This schema probably should have been 3 with a ti,twl-common.yaml > schema for the common properties, but I'm not sure it is worth > changing now. > Or a ti,twl4030.yaml and a ti,twl603X.yaml. 6030 and 6032 have more in common than the 4030. I would propose that is something for the next more final cleaning up/conversion round. First I would like to avoid having drained batteries because of no charging, so allow for more automated testing and bisecting. I think I will prepare a v2 series on monday. Regards, Andreas
