[PATCH v2 04/16] spi: dt-bindings: dw-apb-ssi: update spi-{r,t}x-bus-width

[Serge Semin]

On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 08:39:52PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley at microchip.com>
> 
> Most users of dw-apb-ssi use spi-{r,t}x-bus-width of 1, however the
> Canaan k210 is wired up for a width of 4.
> Quoting Serge:
> The modern DW APB SSI controllers of v.4.* and newer also support the
> enhanced SPI Modes too (Dual, Quad and Octal). Since the IP-core
> version is auto-detected at run-time there is no way to create a
> DT-schema correctly constraining the Rx/Tx SPI bus widths.
> /endquote
> 
> As such, drop the restriction on only supporting a bus width of 1.
> 
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220620205654.g7fyipwytbww5757@mobilestation/
> Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley at microchip.com>
> ---
> Serge, I dropped your R-b when I swapped to the default
> property since it changed the enum.
> ---
>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/snps,dw-apb-ssi.yaml | 6 ------
>  1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/snps,dw-apb-ssi.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/snps,dw-apb-ssi.yaml
> index e25d44c218f2..0a43d6e0ef91 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/snps,dw-apb-ssi.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/snps,dw-apb-ssi.yaml
> @@ -143,12 +143,6 @@ patternProperties:
>          minimum: 0
>          maximum: 3
>  

> -      spi-rx-bus-width:
> -        const: 1
> -
> -      spi-tx-bus-width:
> -        const: 1
> -

My comment was:
> > > You can just use a more relaxed constraint "enum: [1 2 4 8]" here
> >
> > 8 too? sure.
Then Rob said:
> Then no constraints needed because the common definition already has
> this presumably.

IMO preserving the device-specific constraints even if they match the
generic ones has some maintainability benefits. What if you get to
discover a new HW which supports Hexal mode? Then you would have
needed to update the common schema constraints. But that would have
caused permitting the unsupported bus-mode for all the schemas, which
isn't correct. So as I see it the explicit bus-width enumeration would
be ok to have here. But I'll leave it for Rob to make a final
decision.

Rob

>  unevaluatedProperties: false
>  
>  required:
> -- 
> 2.36.1
>