[PATCH V2 1/8] dt-bindings: soc: imx: add binding for i.MX9 syscon

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 31/08/2022 10:57, Peng Fan wrote:
> Hi Krzysztof,
> 
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/8] dt-bindings: soc: imx: add binding for i.MX9
>> syscon
>>
>> On 31/08/2022 10:49, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote:
>>> From: Peng Fan <peng.fan at nxp.com>
>>>
>>> Add binding doc for i.MX9 blk_ctrl_ns_aonmix and blk_ctrl_wakeupmix
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan at nxp.com>
>>> ---
>>>  .../bindings/soc/imx/fsl,imx9-syscon.yaml     | 37 +++++++++++++++++++
>>>  1 file changed, 37 insertions(+)
>>>  create mode 100644
>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/imx/fsl,imx9-syscon.yaml
>>>
>>> diff --git
>>> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/imx/fsl,imx9-syscon.yaml
>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/imx/fsl,imx9-syscon.yaml
>>> new file mode 100644
>>> index 000000000000..90c5e354f86c
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/imx/fsl,imx9-syscon.yaml
>>
>> Filename: fsl,imx93-syscon.yaml
> 
> There are more i.MX9 SoCs in the coming days, I am thinking to let this yaml
> could cover i.MX9[X]. 

If you guarantee that you or someone else will add here more of such,
then it can stay.

(...)

>> Does not look like you tested the bindings. Please run `make
>> dt_binding_check` (see Documentation/devicetree/bindings/writing-
>> schema.rst for instructions).
>>
>> You miss here select.
> 
> There is no error when I ran dt_binding_check
> DT_SCHEMA_FILES=Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/imx/fsl,imx9-syscon.yaml 
>  make ARCH=arm64 DT_CHECKER_FLAGS=-m dt_binding_check
>   LINT    Documentation/devicetree/bindings
>   CHKDT   Documentation/devicetree/bindings/processed-schema.json
>   SCHEMA  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/processed-schema.json
>   DTEX    Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/imx/fsl,imx9-syscon.example.dts
>   DTC     Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/imx/fsl,imx9-syscon.example.dtb
>   CHECK   Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/imx/fsl,imx9-syscon.example.dtb

Eh, you're right, I cannot reproduce the error. Something change in the
schema and custom select seems not needed for this case, but I cannot
identify what exactly changed.

Best regards,
Krzysztof