On Mon, 12 Oct 2020 at 14:02, Yong Wu <yong...@mediatek.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 2020-10-12 at 09:18 +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 10, 2020 at 02:18:11PM +0800, Yong Wu wrote: > > > On Tue, 2020-10-06 at 09:15 +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > > > On Tue, 6 Oct 2020 at 06:27, Yong Wu <yong...@mediatek.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2020-10-02 at 13:08 +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 03:06:25PM +0800, Yong Wu wrote: > > > > > > > Convert MediaTek SMI to DT schema. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Yong Wu <yong...@mediatek.com> > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > .../mediatek,smi-common.txt | 49 --------- > > > > > > > .../mediatek,smi-common.yaml | 100 > > > > > > > ++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > > > .../memory-controllers/mediatek,smi-larb.txt | 49 --------- > > > > > > > .../memory-controllers/mediatek,smi-larb.yaml | 91 > > > > > > > ++++++++++++++++ > > > > > > > 4 files changed, 191 insertions(+), 98 deletions(-) > > > > > > > delete mode 100644 > > > > > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/mediatek,smi-common.txt > > > > > > > create mode 100644 > > > > > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/mediatek,smi-common.yaml > > > > > > > delete mode 100644 > > > > > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/mediatek,smi-larb.txt > > > > > > > create mode 100644 > > > > > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/mediatek,smi-larb.yaml > > > > > ... > > > > > > > +properties: > > > > > > > + compatible: > > > > > > > + oneOf: > > > > > > > + - enum: > > > > > > > + - mediatek,mt2701-smi-common > > > > > > > + - mediatek,mt2712-smi-common > > > > > > > + - mediatek,mt6779-smi-common > > > > > > > + - mediatek,mt8173-smi-common > > > > > > > + - mediatek,mt8183-smi-common > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > + - description: for mt7623 > > > > > > > + items: > > > > > > > + - const: mediatek,mt7623-smi-common > > > > > > > + - const: mediatek,mt2701-smi-common > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > + reg: > > > > > > > + maxItems: 1 > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > + clocks: > > > > > > > + description: | > > > > > > > + apb and smi are mandatory. the async is only for > > > > > > > generation 1 smi HW. > > > > > > > + gals(global async local sync) also is optional, here is > > > > > > > the list which > > > > > > > + require gals: mt6779 and mt8183. > > > > > > > + minItems: 2 > > > > > > > + maxItems: 4 > > > > > > > + items: > > > > > > > + - description: apb is Advanced Peripheral Bus clock, It's > > > > > > > the clock for > > > > > > > + setting the register. > > > > > > > + - description: smi is the clock for transfer data and > > > > > > > command. > > > > > > > + - description: async is asynchronous clock, it help > > > > > > > transform the smi clock > > > > > > > + into the emi clock domain. > > > > > > > + - description: gals0 is the path0 clock of gals. > > > > > > > + - description: gals1 is the path1 clock of gals. > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > + clock-names: > > > > > > > + oneOf: > > > > > > > + - items: > > > > > > > + - const: apb > > > > > > > + - const: smi > > > > > > > + - items: > > > > > > > + - const: apb > > > > > > > + - const: smi > > > > > > > + - const: async > > > > > > > + - items: > > > > > > > + - const: apb > > > > > > > + - const: smi > > > > > > > + - const: gals0 > > > > > > > + - const: gals1 > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly to my comment to other properties, this requirement per > > > > > > compatible should be part of the schema within 'if-then'. > > > > > > > > > > I'm not so familiar with this format. Do this has "if-then-'else > > > > > if'-then-else"? > > > > > > > > These are mutually exclusive conditions, so you can skip else: > > > > - if-then > > > > - if-then > > > > - if-then > > > > It will be more readable then stacking 'if' under 'else' > > > > > > Thanks. I will use something like this: > > > > > > anyOf: > > > > Then it should be oneOf as only one condition can be valid. > > I did do this at the beginning. But I get a warning log when > dt_binding_check.
Mhmm, right, since "if-else" matches in either of arms, then oneOf will complain as it expects only one of items to match. Then just go with allOf. anyOf might match zero of items, so it would not catch actual errors, I think. Best regards, Krzysztof _______________________________________________ iommu mailing list iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
