Stephen, On 07:51-20210417, Nishanth Menon wrote: > On 16:55-20210416, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > Quoting Nishanth Menon (2021-04-15 23:37:19) > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/ti,sci-clk.yaml > > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/ti,sci-clk.yaml > > > new file mode 100644 > > > index 000000000000..72633651f0c7 > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/ti,sci-clk.yaml > > > @@ -0,0 +1,52 @@ > > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only or BSD-2-Clause) > > > +%YAML 1.2 > > > +--- > > > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/clock/ti,sci-clk.yaml# > > > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# > > > + > > > +title: TI-SCI clock controller node bindings > > > + > > > +maintainers: > > > + - Nishanth Menon <[email protected]> > > > + > > > +allOf: > > > + - $ref: /schemas/clock/clock.yaml# > > > > Is this needed? > > https://github.com/devicetree-org/dt-schema/blob/master/schemas/clock/clock.yaml > This standardizes provider properties like '#clock-cells' etc, allowing > you to add more stricter checks or controls in the future if necessary. > > while: > > https://github.com/devicetree-org/dt-schema/blob/master/meta-schemas/clocks.yaml > is more a consumer node description. > > Should I have picked a different yaml as base for a standard clock-controller > base? >
Thinking again, I think your comment was to drop the clock.yaml inclusion, and, as a result this schema can become more stringent.. Could you clarify? > > > > > + > > > +description: | > > > + Some TI SoCs contain a system controller (like the Power Management > > > Micro > > > + Controller (PMMC) on Keystone 66AK2G SoC) that are responsible for > > > controlling > > > + the state of the various hardware modules present on the SoC. > > > Communication > > > + between the host processor running an OS and the system controller > > > happens > > > + through a protocol called TI System Control Interface (TI-SCI > > > protocol). > > > + > > > + This clock controller node uses the TI SCI protocol to perform various > > > clock > > > + management of various hardware modules (devices) present on the SoC. > > > This > > > + node must be a child node of the associated TI-SCI system controller > > > node. > > > + > > > +properties: > > > + $nodename: > > > + pattern: "^clock-controller$" > > > > Is this nodename pattern check required? > > I'd like the definition on rails and not subject to interpretation, and > restrict the kind of subnodes under TISCI controller node. > > > > > > + > > > + compatible: > > > + const: ti,k2g-sci-clk > > > > I thought most things keyed off the compatible string. > > Yes, they are. I am not sure I understand your question here. Did you > mean to indicate that having $nodename and compatible both are > redundant? > > Redundancy was'nt the intent of this schema definition, rather, I'd like > to make sure that it is not upto interpretation or debate as to what the > node name should be: I believe clock-controller is the correct nodename > (without @0x... since this does'nt use reg property) instead of using > clocks, tisci-clock as the node names. > > > Do you suggest something different? > > -- > Regards, > Nishanth Menon > Key (0xDDB5849D1736249D)/Fingerprint: F8A2 8693 54EB 8232 17A3 1A34 DDB5 > 849D 1736 249D -- Regards, Nishanth Menon Key (0xDDB5849D1736249D) / Fingerprint: F8A2 8693 54EB 8232 17A3 1A34 DDB5 849D 1736 249D
