On 28/11/2022 15:03, Alexandre Mergnat wrote: > >>>> +allOf: >>>> + - if: >>>> + properties: >>>> + compatible: >>>> + contains: >>>> + const: mediatek,mt8365-pwrap >>>> + then: >>>> + properties: >>>> + clocks: >>>> + minItems: 4 >>>> + >>>> + clock-names: >>>> + minItems: 4 >>> >>> else: >>> ??? >> >> Actually this looks less complete than your previous patch. >> >> else: >> clocks: >> maxItems: 2 >> same for clock-names >> > > I think I’ve followed the feedback done here [1] > I’ve declared `minItems: 2` globally and override it to 4 if > mediatek,mt8365-pwrap is used. Isn’t it the right way to implement it > ? Yes, just the other part of comment is missing: "If you really want to force a validation error when using mediatek,mt8365-pwrap and not providing `sys` and `tmr` clocks, you can just override minItems." but that's fine if this was your intention. > >>>> + compatible = "mediatek,mt8135-pwrap"; >>>> + reg = <0 0x1000f000 0 0x1000>, >>> >>> This does not match your unit address. No warnings when compile testing? >>> > > There are no warnings when compile testing. I will fix the unit > address anyway, sorry. > >>>> + <0 0x11017000 0 0x1000>; >>>> + reg-names = "pwrap", "pwrap-bridge"; >>>> + interrupts = <GIC_SPI 128 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>; >>>> + clocks = <&clk26m>, <&clk26m>; >>>> + clock-names = "spi", "wrap"; >>>> + resets = <&infracfg MT8135_INFRA_PMIC_WRAP_RST>, >>>> + <&pericfg MT8135_PERI_PWRAP_BRIDGE_SW_RST>; >>>> + reset-names = "pwrap", "pwrap-bridge"; >>> >>> Missing pmic. Make your example complete. >> >> Probably pmic should be skipped, I understand it is described in MFD >> binding. >> > > Put the pmic in the example have 2 constraints: > - The original pmic "mediatek,mt6397" isn’t supported by a yaml > schema, so I’ve a dt_binding_check fail: `failed to match any schema > with compatible: ['mediatek,mt6397']` > - If I put another pmic that supports a yaml schema, I need to put all > required properties for the pmic, which I thought was unnecessary > since it’s already done in its own schema and can change for another > pmic, so less consistent. > > Then yes, IMHO, PMIC should be skipped in the example. Yes, you're right. Best regards, Krzysztof
