Hi Krzysztof, On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 9:06 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 19/03/2024 14:25, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 2:04 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski > > <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 19/03/2024 13:43, Lad, Prabhakar wrote: > >>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/renesas,scif.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/renesas,scif.yaml > >>>>>> index af72c3420453..53f18e9810fd 100644 > >>>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/renesas,scif.yaml > >>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/renesas,scif.yaml > >>>>>> @@ -82,38 +82,6 @@ properties: > >>>>>> reg: > >>>>>> maxItems: 1 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> - interrupts: > >>>>> > >>>>> I don't understand what is happening with this patchset. Interrupts must > >>>>> stay here. Where did you receive any different feedback? > >>>> > >>>> Look how it is done: > >>>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.8/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/qcom,ufs.yaml#L44 > >>>> > >>> Thanks for the pointer, as the above binding doesn't have any > >> > >> Yeah, that's just an example to point you the concept: top level > >> property comes with widest constraints (or widest matching items > >> description) and each variant narrows the choice. > >> > >>> description items as compared to our case, to clarify I have updated > >>> the binding is below. Is this the correct approach? > >>> > >>> option #1 > >>> --------------- > >> > >> > >> Yes, it looks correct. > > > > Why duplicate all the descriptions? The only differences are the number > > of valid interrupts? > > What was wrong with "[PATCH v2 2/2] dt-bindings: serial: renesas,scif: > > Validate 'interrupts' and 'interrupt-names'"[1]? > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240307114217.34784-3-prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > I have impression that only two variants out of three have same > descriptions... but now I see mistake I made in above. I read that first > interrupt is "Error interrupt" but it is "error or combined". Sorry for > that, I think most of my comment there is not correct. > > It could be made oneOf? > > oneOf: > - items: > - description: A combined interrupt > - items: > - .... > minItems: 4 > ? Yes, that would be even better. 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
