[PATCH v5 5/5] dt-bindings: clocks: at91sam9x5-sckc: convert to yaml

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 18/05/2023 10:31, Claudiu.Beznea at microchip.com wrote:
> On 17.05.2023 17:15, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>>
>> On Wed, 17 May 2023 12:41:19 +0300, Claudiu Beznea wrote:
>>> Convert Atmel slow clock controller documentation to yaml.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea at microchip.com>
>>> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski at linaro.org>
>>> ---
>>>  .../devicetree/bindings/clock/at91-clock.txt  | 30 --------
>>>  .../bindings/clock/atmel,at91sam9x5-sckc.yaml | 70 +++++++++++++++++++
>>>  2 files changed, 70 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
>>>  delete mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/at91-clock.txt
>>>  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/atmel,at91sam9x5-sckc.yaml
>>>
>>
>> Running 'make dtbs_check' with the schema in this patch gives the
>> following warnings. Consider if they are expected or the schema is
>> incorrect. These may not be new warnings.
>>
>> Note that it is not yet a requirement to have 0 warnings for dtbs_check.
>> This will change in the future.
>>
>> Full log is available here: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1782586
>>
>>
>> sckc at fffffe50: '#clock-cells' is a required property
>>         arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9n12ek.dtb
>>
>> sckc at fffffe50: 'clocks' is a required property
>>         arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9n12ek.dtb
>>
>> sckc at fffffe50: 'slck', 'slow_osc', 'slow_rc_osc' do not match any of the regexes: 'pinctrl-[0-9]+'
>>         arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9n12ek.dtb
> 
> Is it possible that this has been checked on a wrong base? I'm asking this
> because:
> - patch 3/5 in this series uses proper bindings for slow clock controller
>   on at91sam9n12.dtsi (which includes #clock-cells and clocks bindings and
>   removes slck, slow_osc, slow_rc_osc)
> - patch 4/5 in this series does s/sckc@/clock-controller@/ in all AT91
>   device trees.

Yes, it is quite likely. It's up to you to investigate it or ignore if
you are sure report is a false positive.

> 
> Moreover, I've re-checked all the individual dtsi files that describes a
> slow clock controller and all descriptions has the "#clock-cells", "clocks"
> property available and no slck, slow_osc, slow_rc_osc as childs of
> sckc at fffffe50.
> 
> If not, could you please let me know your checker command?


make dbts_check

Best regards,
Krzysztof