[PATCH v2 4/5] dt-bindings: add bindings for polarfire soc system controller

[Conor.Dooley at microchip.com]

On 07/12/2020 15:56, Rob Herring wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>
> On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 11:03:11AM +0000, conor.dooley at microchip.com wrote:
>> From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley at microchip.com>
>>
>> Add device tree bindings for the MSS system controller on
>> the Microchip PolarFire SoC.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley at microchip.com>
>> ---
>>  .../microchip,mpfs_sys_controller.yaml        | 49 +++++++++++++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 49 insertions(+)
>>  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/microchip/microchip,mpfs_sys_controller.yaml
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/microchip/microchip,mpfs_sys_controller.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/microchip/microchip,mpfs_sys_controller.yaml
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000000..c22fc203b95c
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/microchip/microchip,mpfs_sys_controller.yaml
>> @@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
>> +%YAML 1.2
>> +---
>> +$id: "http://devicetree.org/schemas/soc/microchip/microchip,mpfs_sys_controller.yaml#"
>> +$schema: "http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#"
>> +
>> +title: Microchip MPFS system controller
>> +
>> +maintainers:
>> +  - Conor Dooley <conor.dooley at microchip.com>
>> +
>> +properties:
>> +  compatible:
>> +    const: microchip,polarfire-soc-sys-controller
>> +
>> +  mbox-names:
>> +    maxItems: 1
>> +    description: name of the mailbox controller device node
> Kind of pointless to have names when there is only one entry. I'd drop,
> but if you do, you need to define what the name is.
sure, will drop
>
>> +
>> +  mboxes:
>> +    maxItems: 1
>> +    description: |
>> +      phandle and index of the mailbox controller device node. It must be 0 (hardware supports only one channel).
> No need to redefine a common property. And the value 0 is outside the
> scope of this binding. That's dependent on the mbox h/w.

I was going off what the other drivers had done here with the redefinition. Should I be doing something like the bcm2835 instead?

  mboxes:
    $ref: '/schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/phandle-array'
    description: |
      phandle and index of the mailbox controller device node.
      See: ../mailbox/mailbox.txt for more information.
    maxItems: 1

>> +
>> +
>> +  "#address-cells":
>> +    const: 1
>> +
>> +  "#size-cells":
>> +    const: 1
> These are not needed unless you have child nodes. If you do, then they
> also need to be defined here.
no child nodes, so ill drop these too
>> +
>> +required:
>> +  - compatible
>> +  - mbox-names
>> +  - "#address-cells"
>> +  - "#size-cells"
>> +  - "mboxes"
>> +
>> +additionalProperties: false
>> +
>> +examples:
>> +  - |
>> +    syscontroller: syscontroller {
>> +      compatible = "microchip,polarfire-soc-sys-controller";
>> +      #address-cells = <1>;
>> +      #size-cells = <1>;
>> +      mbox-names = "mbox-mpfs";
>> +      mboxes = <&mbox 0>;
>> +    };
>> --
>> 2.17.1
>>