On 19/08/2022 11:37, Sergiu.Moga@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >>> + - items: >>> + - const: atmel,at91rm9200-dbgu >>> + - const: atmel,at91rm9200-usart >>> + - items: >>> + - const: atmel,at91sam9260-dbgu >>> + - const: atmel,at91sam9260-usart >>> + - items: >>> + - const: microchip,sam9x60-dbgu >>> + - const: microchip,sam9x60-usart >>> + - items: >>> + - const: microchip,sam9x60-usart >>> + - const: atmel,at91sam9260-usart >> This is not correct - contradicts earlier one. >> > > Yes, this was for a DT node we have internally, my bad. You are right, > it does not really make sense and it should not be the other way around: > having the DT validate the binding. I will remove this combination in > the next version. You need to fix any out of tree DTS or upstream it. > > >>> + - items: >>> + - const: microchip,sam9x60-dbgu >>> + - const: microchip,sam9x60-usart >>> + - const: atmel,at91sam9260-dbgu >>> + - const: atmel,at91sam9260-usart >> What? You wrote above that microchip,sam9x60-dbgu is compatible only >> with microchip,sam9x60-usart. Now you write it is also compatible with >> other ones? > > > Yes, this one is intended because the 9x60 IP has new functionalities on > top of 9260, and some nodes do keep all four as fallback. Then all nodes should keep fallbacks. > > >>> + >>> + reg: >>> + maxItems: 1 >>> + >>> + interrupts: >>> + maxItems: 1 >>> + >>> + clock-names: >>> + contains: >>> + const: usart >> No, this has to be specific/fixed list. > > > I wanted to highlight the fact that it must contain either: > clock-names = "usart"; > or > clock-names = "usart", "gclk"; > > What would be the recommended way of doing this then? We have an example for this. https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.19/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/example-schema.yaml#L91 Best regards, Krzysztof
