[RFC PATCH 2/3] dt-bindings: watchdog: ti,davinci-wdt: convert to dtschema

[Kousik Sanagavarapu]

On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 03:50:15PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 22/07/2024 15:12, Kousik Sanagavarapu wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 10:15:03AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> On 21/07/2024 18:28, Kousik Sanagavarapu wrote:
> >>> +properties:
> >>> +  compatible:
> >>> +    enum:
> >>> +      - ti,davinci-wdt
> >>> +      - ti,keystone-wdt
> >>
> >> This does not match the original binding and commit msg did not explain
> >> why such change is necessary.
> > 
> > I don't understand.  Do you mean both the compatibles are always
> > compulsory?  Meaning
> > 
> > 	compatible:
> > 	  items:
> > 	    - const: ti,davinci-wdt
> > 	    - const: ti,keystone-wdt
> 
> Yes, this is what old binding said.

That was what I thought initially too, but the example in the old
binding says otherwise and also the DTS from ti/davinci/da850.dtsi
says

	wdt: watchdog at 21000 {
		compatible = "ti,davinci-wdt";
		reg = <0x21000 0x1000>;
		clocks = <&pll0_auxclk>;
		status = "disabled";
	};

Or am I seeing it the wrong way?

> > 
> > It is enum because I intended it to align with the subsequent patch
> > which changes DTS.
> > 
> >> This also does not match DTS.
> > 
> > Yes.  I've asked about changing the DTS in the subsequent patch.
> > 
> 
> Changing the DTS cannot be the reason to affect users and DTS... It's
> tautology. You change DTS because you intent to change DTS?

Not exactly.  I thought that the DTS was wrong when it said

	compatible = "ti,keystone-wdt", "ti,davinci-wdt";

while it should have been

	compatible = "ti,keystone-wdt";

I was not sure about this though and hence marked both the patches as
RFC, in case I was interpretting them the wrong way.

Thanks