[PATCH 07/10] dt-bindings: rng: add st,rng-lock-conf

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 15/09/2023 11:28, Gatien CHEVALLIER wrote:
> Hello Rob,
> 
> On 9/11/23 17:09, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 08, 2023 at 06:51:17PM +0200, Gatien Chevallier wrote:
>>> If st,rng-lock-conf is set, the RNG configuration in RNG_CR, RNG_HTCR
>>> and RNG_NSCR will be locked. It is supported starting from the RNG
>>> version present in the STM32MP13
>>
>> This should be squashed into the prior binding patch.
>>
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Gatien Chevallier <gatien.chevallier at foss.st.com>
>>> ---
>>>   .../devicetree/bindings/rng/st,stm32-rng.yaml      | 14 ++++++++++++++
>>>   1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rng/st,stm32-rng.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rng/st,stm32-rng.yaml
>>> index 59abdc85a9fb..0055f14a8e3f 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rng/st,stm32-rng.yaml
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rng/st,stm32-rng.yaml
>>> @@ -37,6 +37,20 @@ required:
>>>     - reg
>>>     - clocks
>>>   
>>> +allOf:
>>> +  - if:
>>> +      properties:
>>> +        compatible:
>>> +          contains:
>>> +            enum:
>>> +              - st,stm32mp13-rng
>>> +    then:
>>> +      properties:
>>> +        st,rng-lock-conf:
>>> +          type: boolean
>>> +          description: If set, the RNG configuration in RNG_CR, RNG_HTCR and
>>> +                       RNG_NSCR will be locked.
>>
>> Define the property at the top-level and then restrict its presence in
>> a if/then schema.
>>
> 
> Can you please point me to an example of such case. I can't find a way
> to define at the top-level the property then restrict it to specific
> compatibles.

You can check my slides from the talks about not reaching 10 iterations
of bindings patches.

Or open example-schema (this should be your starting point):
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.19/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/example-schema.yaml#L212


Also:
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.4-rc7/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/qcom,ipa.yaml#L174
> 
> Else I'd change
> additionalProperties :false to
> unevaluatedProperties: false
> 
> so the definition of the property is seen.

No, why? Definition is there when you move it to the top as asked.

Best regards,
Krzysztof