Re: [PATCH 0/3] Fix up qcom,halt-regs definition in various schemas

On Sun, 07 Apr 2024 11:58:29 +0200, Luca Weiss wrote: > The original motivation is that a bunch of other schemas fail to > validate qcom,halt-regs, for example like in the following examples: > > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/apq8016-sbc.dtb: remoteproc@408: > qcom,halt-regs:0: [20] is too

Re: [PATCH 0/3] Fix up qcom,halt-regs definition in various schemas

On Dienstag, 9. April 2024 17:10:41 CEST Rob Herring wrote: > On Sun, Apr 07, 2024 at 11:58:29AM +0200, Luca Weiss wrote: > > The original motivation is that a bunch of other schemas fail to > > validate qcom,halt-regs, for example like in the following examples: > > > >

Re: [PATCH 0/3] Fix up qcom,halt-regs definition in various schemas

On Sun, Apr 07, 2024 at 11:58:29AM +0200, Luca Weiss wrote: > The original motivation is that a bunch of other schemas fail to > validate qcom,halt-regs, for example like in the following examples: > > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/apq8016-sbc.dtb: remoteproc@408: > qcom,halt-regs:0: [20] is too

[PATCH 0/3] Fix up qcom,halt-regs definition in various schemas

The original motivation is that a bunch of other schemas fail to validate qcom,halt-regs, for example like in the following examples: arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/apq8016-sbc.dtb: remoteproc@408: qcom,halt-regs:0: [20] is too short from schema $id: