[PATCH v3 1/2] dt-bindings: phy: rockchip,inno-usb2phy: add rk3576
Krzysztof Kozlowski
krzk at kernel.org
Fri Sep 27 02:56:47 PDT 2024
On 27/09/2024 10:02, Heiko Stuebner wrote:
> Hi Krzysztof,
>
> Am Freitag, 27. September 2024, 09:30:30 CEST schrieb Krzysztof Kozlowski:
>> On 27/09/2024 09:01, Frank Wang wrote:
>>> Hi Krzysztof,
>>>
>>> On 2024/9/26 22:19, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 26/09/2024 12:32, Frank Wang wrote:
>>>>> + - if:
>>>>> + properties:
>>>>> + compatible:
>>>>> + contains:
>>>>> + enum:
>>>>> + - rockchip,rk3576-usb2phy
>>>>> + then:
>>>>> + properties:
>>>>> + clocks:
>>>>> + minItems: 3
>>>>> + maxItems: 3
>>>> Read one more time the example I gave you. Top-level constraints are
>>>> saying max one clock.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Krzysztof
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry for overlooking this, I will set both "clocks" and "clock-names"
>>> to true, and add the else case below the above codes for the "old" SoCs.
>>> Just like the below.
>>>
>>> - clocks:
>>> - maxItems: 1
>>> + clocks: true
>>>
>>> - clock-names:
>>> - const: phyclk
>>> + clock-names: true
>>
>> For the third time, read the code I gave you. Do you see something like
>> this there? Why doing all the time something different than existing code?
>
> On vacation right now so late to the party, and somewhat confused :-) .
>
> I've tried to find the code you mentioned, but did fail.
> In [0] you mention "maybe oneOf". The other replies in that version were
> about the ordering needing to stay for the older phy variants.
>
> [1] in v2 has that NAK thing and [2] from v3 references that example again
>
> I am probably just blind, but could use a pointer.
Oh, maybe I did not provide the link?
I apologize. I thought I gave reference to standard example. My bad.
Here it goes:
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.11-rc6/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/qcom,ufs.yaml#L127
Best regards,
Krzysztof
More information about the Linux-rockchip
mailing list