[EXT] Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] dt-bindings: arm: fsl: add imx-se-fw binding doc

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 08/07/2024 07:50, Pankaj Gupta wrote:
>> Drop redundant/obvious parts.
> Will replace above two description line with the below two.
>       - description: mailbox phandle to send message to se firmware
>       - description: mailbox phandle to receive message from se firmware
> 
>>
>> So two mailboxes?
> Two handles of the same mailbox.
> 
>>
>>> +
>>> +  mbox-names:
>>> +    items:
>>> +      - const: tx
>>> +      - const: rx
>>> +      - const: txdb
>>> +      - const: rxdb
>>
>> 4 mailboxes? This cannot be different.
> mbox-names can have any of the above mentioned 4 values.
> And  two values are minimum, required.

No, I said it cannot be different. If two are minimum, then you can have
here 4, right? But earlier you said you can have only 2. It does not
make any sense.

> 
>>
>>> +    minItems: 2
>>> +
>>> +  memory-region:
>>> +    description: contains the phandle to reserved external memory.
>>
>> Drop
> Will remove the line " description: contains the phandle to reserved external memory."
> 
>>
>>> +    items:
>>> +      - description: It is used by secure-enclave firmware. It is an optional
>>> +          property based on compatible and identifier to communication
>> interface.
>>> +          (see bindings/reserved-memory/reserved-memory.txt)
>>> +
>>> +  sram:
>>> +    description: contains the phandle to sram.
>>
>> Drop
> Will remove " description: contains the phandle to sram."
> 
>>
>>> +    items:
>>> +      - description: Phandle to the device SRAM. It is an optional property
>>> +          based on compatible and identifier to communication interface.
>>> +
>>> +required:
>>> +  - compatible
>>> +  - reg
>>> +  - mboxes
>>> +  - mbox-names
>>> +
>>> +additionalProperties: false
>>
>> Keep it after allOf block
> 
> In V2, it is after allOf block.
> In previous comments, it was commented to place allOf block, after required.
> I am little confused.

So why did you implement it entirely different? Read the comment from
Conor and from me again. I am sorry, but repeating the same three times
(once by Conor, twice by me) is quite a waste of time.

Open example-schema. How is it done there?

Best regards,
Krzysztof