On 22/11/2023 07:17, Rafał Miłecki wrote: > On 21.11.2023 23:38, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 21/11/2023 13:13, Rafał Miłecki wrote: >>> From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> >> >> Thank you for your patch. There is something to discuss/improve. >> >>> + >>> +properties: >>> + compatible: >>> + const: brcm,bcm63138-hs-uart >>> + >>> + reg: >>> + maxItems: 1 >>> + >>> + interrupts: >>> + maxItems: 1 >>> + >>> +required: >> >> Missing compatible. > > I stopped putting "compatible" in "required" in schemas back in 2020 :O > > Back then I received a comment from Rob [0] in discussion on > [PATCH] dt-bindings: mtd: convert "fixed-partitions" to the json-schema > telling to drop it: > > On 10.12.2020 03:48, Rob Herring wrote: > > And drop 'compatible' as required. It's redundant anyways because the > > schema will only be applied if compatible matches. > > So I'll need some help here please. Should I start including > "compatible" in "required" after all? Or is that situation specific > (could you explain what does it depend on)? Hm, it is redundant, true, although I always preferred it listed to be explicit. But in such case no problem: Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> Best regards, Krzysztof
