[PATCH 5/7] dt-bindings: soc: imx: add missing anatop binding

[Rob Herring]

On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 5:38 AM Dong Aisheng <dongas86 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 10:49 AM Rob Herring <robh at kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 04:25:34PM +0800, Dong Aisheng wrote:
> > > Anatop is a system combo module which supports various analog functions
> > > like PLL, Regulators, LDOs, Sensors and etc.
> > > This binding doc is generated based on the exist usage in dts
> > > in order to fix dt schema check failures.
> > >
> > > Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt at kernel.org>
> > > Cc: Shawn Guo <shawnguo at kernel.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Dong Aisheng <aisheng.dong at nxp.com>
> > > ---
> > >  .../bindings/soc/imx/fsl,anatop.yaml          | 68 +++++++++++++++++++
> > >  1 file changed, 68 insertions(+)
> > >  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/imx/fsl,anatop.yaml
> > >
> > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/imx/fsl,anatop.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/imx/fsl,anatop.yaml
> > > new file mode 100644
> > > index 000000000000..f379d960f527
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/imx/fsl,anatop.yaml
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
> > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
> > > +%YAML 1.2
> > > +---
> > > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/soc/imx/fsl,anatop.yaml#
> > > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
> > > +
> > > +title: Freescale Anatop binding
> > > +
> > > +maintainers:
> > > +  - Dong Aisheng <aisheng.dong at nxp.com>
> > > +
> > > +properties:
> > > +  compatible:
> > > +    oneOf:
> > > +      - items:
> > > +          - const: fsl,imx6q-anatop
> > > +          - const: syscon
> > > +          - const: simple-mfd
> > > +      - items:
> > > +          - enum:
> > > +              - fsl,imx6sl-anatop
> > > +              - fsl,imx6sll-anatop
> > > +              - fsl,imx6sx-anatop
> > > +              - fsl,imx6ul-anatop
> > > +              - fsl,imx7d-anatop
> > > +          - const: fsl,imx6q-anatop
> > > +          - const: syscon
> > > +          - const: simple-mfd
> > > +      - items:
> > > +          - enum:
> > > +              - fsl,imx8mq-anatop
> > > +              - fsl,imx8mm-anatop
> > > +              - fsl,vf610-anatop
> > > +          - const: syscon
> > > +      - items:
> > > +          - enum:
> > > +              - fsl,imx8mn-anatop
> > > +              - fsl,imx8mp-anatop
> > > +          - const: fsl,imx8mm-anatop
> > > +          - const: syscon
> > > +
> > > +  reg:
> > > +    maxItems: 1
> > > +
> > > +  interrupts:
> > > +    items:
> > > +      - description: Temperature Sensor
> > > +      - description: PMU interrupt 1
> > > +      - description: PMU interrupt 2
> > > +    minItems: 1
> > > +    maxItems: 3
> >
> > Don't need maxItems.
> >
>
> Got it
>
> > > +
> > > +required:
> > > +  - compatible
> > > +  - reg
> > > +
> > > +additionalProperties: true
> >
> > This should be the case only for common schemas used by other schemas.
> >
>
> Like iomuxc-gpr in patch 6, the problem is that for those nodes with
> simple-mfd backwards compatibility,
> there could be possibly some random subnodes since there're generic
> combo registers.
> That's why i use additionalProperties true to cover it.
> Do you think it's ok?

No, because all that should be reviewed rather than random subnodes.
Otherwise, how do we validate them?

Rob