On 21/11/2023 10:46, Jingbao Qiu wrote: > Add devicetree binding for Sophgo CV1800B SoC rtc controller. A nit, subject: drop second/last, redundant "binding for". The "dt-bindings" prefix is already stating that these are bindings. > > Signed-off-by: Jingbao Qiu <qiujingbao.dlmu@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > .../bindings/rtc/sophgo,cv1800b-rtc.yaml | 37 +++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/sophgo,cv1800b-rtc.yaml > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/sophgo,cv1800b-rtc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/sophgo,cv1800b-rtc.yaml > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..fefb1e70c45c > --- /dev/null > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/sophgo,cv1800b-rtc.yaml > @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause > +%YAML 1.2 > +--- > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/rtc/sophgo,cv1800b-rtc.yaml# > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# > + > +title: Sophgo CV1800B SoC RTC Controller What is a RTC Controller? You have multiple RTCs there? > + > +maintainers: > + - Jingbao Qiu <qiujingbao.dlmu@xxxxxxxxx> > + Missing ref to rtc.yaml. Unless it is not applicable but then why? > +properties: > + compatible: > + enum: > + - sophgo,cv1800b-rtc Blank line > + reg: > + maxItems: 1 > + > + interrupts: > + maxItems: 1 > + > +required: > + - compatible > + - reg > + - interrupts > + > +additionalProperties: false unevaluatedProperties instead > + > +examples: > + - | > + rtc-controller@05026000{ The names is always "rtc", unless this is not RTC. If it isn't, please add full description of the hardware. > + compatible = "sophgo,cv800b-rtc"; > + reg = <0x05026000 0x1000>; > + interrupts = <17 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>; > + interrupt-parent = <&plic0>; > + clocks = <&osc>; Why do you send untested bindings? Review costs significant amount of effort. Code was also not compiled? Warnings not fixed? Best regards, Krzysztof
