On Fri, Sep 04, 2020 at 04:36:39PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 9:25 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski <k...@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > Driver requires different amount of clocks for different SoCs. Describe > > these requirements properly to fix dtbs_check warnings like: > > > > arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/imx8mm-beacon-kit.dt.yaml: > > nand-controller@33002000: clock-names:1: 'gpmi_apb' was expected > > > > Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k...@kernel.org> > > > > --- > > > > Changes since v1: > > 1. Do not require order of clocks (use pattern). > > To the extent that you can, you should fix the order in dts files > first. If we just adjust the schemas to match the dts files, then > what's the point?
The DTSes do not have mixed order of clocks between each other, as fair as I remember. It was fix after Sasha Hauer comment that order is not necessarily good. We have the clock-names property, why enforcing the order? > > > --- > > .../devicetree/bindings/mtd/gpmi-nand.yaml | 76 +++++++++++++++---- > > 1 file changed, 61 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/gpmi-nand.yaml > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/gpmi-nand.yaml > > index 28ff8c581837..e08e0a50929e 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/gpmi-nand.yaml > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/gpmi-nand.yaml > > @@ -9,9 +9,6 @@ title: Freescale General-Purpose Media Interface (GPMI) > > binding > > maintainers: > > - Han Xu <han...@nxp.com> > > > > -allOf: > > - - $ref: "nand-controller.yaml" > > - > > description: | > > The GPMI nand controller provides an interface to control the NAND > > flash chips. The device tree may optionally contain sub-nodes > > @@ -58,22 +55,10 @@ properties: > > clocks: > > minItems: 1 > > maxItems: 5 > > - items: > > - - description: SoC gpmi io clock > > - - description: SoC gpmi apb clock > > - - description: SoC gpmi bch clock > > - - description: SoC gpmi bch apb clock > > - - description: SoC per1 bch clock > > > > clock-names: > > minItems: 1 > > maxItems: 5 > > - items: > > - - const: gpmi_io > > - - const: gpmi_apb > > - - const: gpmi_bch > > - - const: gpmi_bch_apb > > - - const: per1_bch > > > > fsl,use-minimum-ecc: > > type: boolean > > @@ -107,6 +92,67 @@ required: > > > > unevaluatedProperties: false > > > > +allOf: > > + - $ref: "nand-controller.yaml" > > + > > + - if: > > + properties: > > + compatible: > > + contains: > > + enum: > > + - fsl,imx23-gpmi-nand > > + - fsl,imx28-gpmi-nand > > + then: > > + properties: > > + clocks: > > + items: > > + - description: SoC gpmi io clock > > + clock-names: > > + items: > > + - const: gpmi_io > > + > > + - if: > > + properties: > > + compatible: > > + contains: > > + enum: > > + - fsl,imx6q-gpmi-nand > > + - fsl,imx6sx-gpmi-nand > > + then: > > + properties: > > + clocks: > > + items: > > + - description: SoC gpmi io clock > > + - description: SoC gpmi apb clock > > + - description: SoC gpmi bch clock > > + - description: SoC gpmi bch apb clock > > + - description: SoC per1 bch clock > > + clock-names: > > + items: > > + - pattern: "^(gpmi_(io|apb|bch|bch_apb)|per1_bch)$" > > + - pattern: "^(gpmi_(io|apb|bch|bch_apb)|per1_bch)$" > > + - pattern: "^(gpmi_(io|apb|bch|bch_apb)|per1_bch)$" > > + - pattern: "^(gpmi_(io|apb|bch|bch_apb)|per1_bch)$" > > + - pattern: "^(gpmi_(io|apb|bch|bch_apb)|per1_bch)$" > > BTW, you can make 'items' a schema rather than a list to apply a > constraint to all entries: > > maxItems: 5 > items: > pattern: "^(gpmi_(io|apb|bch|bch_apb)|per1_bch)$" Right, I forgot about such syntax. > > > + > > + - if: > > + properties: > > + compatible: > > + contains: > > + const: fsl,imx7d-gpmi-nand > > + then: > > + properties: > > + clocks: > > + items: > > + - description: SoC gpmi io clock > > + - description: SoC gpmi bch apb clock > > + clock-names: > > + minItems: 2 > > + maxItems: 2 > > You can drop these. It's the default based on the size of 'items'. Sure. > > > + items: > > + - pattern: "^gpmi_(io|bch_apb)$" > > + - pattern: "^gpmi_(io|bch_apb)$" > > Surely here we can define the order. Yes, but still the same question as before - do we want the order? Why enforcing it? Best regards, Krzysztof
