[PATCH v6 05/10] dt-bindings: soc: mediatek: convert pwrap documentation

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 28/11/2022 15:03, Alexandre Mergnat wrote:
> 
>>>> +allOf:
>>>> +  - if:
>>>> +      properties:
>>>> +        compatible:
>>>> +          contains:
>>>> +            const: mediatek,mt8365-pwrap
>>>> +    then:
>>>> +      properties:
>>>> +        clocks:
>>>> +          minItems: 4
>>>> +
>>>> +        clock-names:
>>>> +          minItems: 4
>>>
>>> else:
>>> ???
>>
>> Actually this looks less complete than your previous patch.
>>
>> else:
>>   clocks:
>>     maxItems: 2
>> same for clock-names
>>
> 
> I think I’ve followed the feedback done here [1]
> I’ve declared `minItems: 2` globally and override it to 4 if
> mediatek,mt8365-pwrap is used. Isn’t it the right way to implement it
> ?

Yes, just the other part of comment is missing:
"If you really want to force a validation error when using
mediatek,mt8365-pwrap
and not providing `sys` and `tmr` clocks, you can just override minItems."

but that's fine if this was your intention.

> 
>>>> +            compatible = "mediatek,mt8135-pwrap";
>>>> +            reg = <0 0x1000f000 0 0x1000>,
>>>
>>> This does not match your unit address. No warnings when compile testing?
>>>
> 
> There are no warnings when compile testing. I will fix the unit
> address anyway, sorry.
> 
>>>> +                  <0 0x11017000 0 0x1000>;
>>>> +            reg-names = "pwrap", "pwrap-bridge";
>>>> +            interrupts = <GIC_SPI 128 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
>>>> +            clocks = <&clk26m>, <&clk26m>;
>>>> +            clock-names = "spi", "wrap";
>>>> +            resets = <&infracfg MT8135_INFRA_PMIC_WRAP_RST>,
>>>> +                     <&pericfg MT8135_PERI_PWRAP_BRIDGE_SW_RST>;
>>>> +            reset-names = "pwrap", "pwrap-bridge";
>>>
>>> Missing pmic. Make your example complete.
>>
>> Probably pmic should be skipped, I understand it is described in MFD
>> binding.
>>
> 
> Put the pmic in the example have 2 constraints:
> - The original pmic "mediatek,mt6397" isn’t supported by a yaml
> schema, so I’ve a dt_binding_check fail: `failed to match any schema
> with compatible: ['mediatek,mt6397']`
> - If I put another pmic that supports a yaml schema, I need to put all
> required properties for the pmic, which I thought was unnecessary
> since it’s already done in its own schema and can change for another
> pmic, so less consistent.
> 
> Then yes, IMHO, PMIC should be skipped in the example.


Yes, you're right.

Best regards,
Krzysztof