On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 03:50:15PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 22/07/2024 15:12, Kousik Sanagavarapu wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 10:15:03AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> On 21/07/2024 18:28, Kousik Sanagavarapu wrote:
> >>> +properties:
> >>> + compatible:
> >>> + enum:
> >>> + - ti,davinci-wdt
> >>> + - ti,keystone-wdt
> >>
> >> This does not match the original binding and commit msg did not explain
> >> why such change is necessary.
> >
> > I don't understand. Do you mean both the compatibles are always
> > compulsory? Meaning
> >
> > compatible:
> > items:
> > - const: ti,davinci-wdt
> > - const: ti,keystone-wdt
>
> Yes, this is what old binding said.
That was what I thought initially too, but the example in the old
binding says otherwise and also the DTS from ti/davinci/da850.dtsi
says
wdt: watchdog@21000 {
compatible = "ti,davinci-wdt";
reg = <0x21000 0x1000>;
clocks = <&pll0_auxclk>;
status = "disabled";
};
Or am I seeing it the wrong way?
> >
> > It is enum because I intended it to align with the subsequent patch
> > which changes DTS.
> >
> >> This also does not match DTS.
> >
> > Yes. I've asked about changing the DTS in the subsequent patch.
> >
>
> Changing the DTS cannot be the reason to affect users and DTS... It's
> tautology. You change DTS because you intent to change DTS?
Not exactly. I thought that the DTS was wrong when it said
compatible = "ti,keystone-wdt", "ti,davinci-wdt";
while it should have been
compatible = "ti,keystone-wdt";
I was not sure about this though and hence marked both the patches as
RFC, in case I was interpretting them the wrong way.
Thanks
