Re: [PATCH 5/7] dt-bindings: soc: imx: add missing anatop binding

[Dong Aisheng <dongas86@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 11:02 PM Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 5:38 AM Dong Aisheng <dongas86@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Rob,
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 10:49 AM Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 04:25:34PM +0800, Dong Aisheng wrote:
> > > > Anatop is a system combo module which supports various analog functions
> > > > like PLL, Regulators, LDOs, Sensors and etc.
> > > > This binding doc is generated based on the exist usage in dts
> > > > in order to fix dt schema check failures.
> > > >
> > > > Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>
> > > > Cc: Shawn Guo <shawnguo@kernel.org>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Dong Aisheng <aisheng.dong@nxp.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  .../bindings/soc/imx/fsl,anatop.yaml          | 68 +++++++++++++++++++
> > > >  1 file changed, 68 insertions(+)
> > > >  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/imx/fsl,anatop.yaml
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/imx/fsl,anatop.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/imx/fsl,anatop.yaml
> > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > index 000000000000..f379d960f527
> > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/imx/fsl,anatop.yaml
> > > > @@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
> > > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
> > > > +%YAML 1.2
> > > > +---
> > > > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/soc/imx/fsl,anatop.yaml#
> > > > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
> > > > +
> > > > +title: Freescale Anatop binding
> > > > +
> > > > +maintainers:
> > > > +  - Dong Aisheng <aisheng.dong@nxp.com>
> > > > +
> > > > +properties:
> > > > +  compatible:
> > > > +    oneOf:
> > > > +      - items:
> > > > +          - const: fsl,imx6q-anatop
> > > > +          - const: syscon
> > > > +          - const: simple-mfd
> > > > +      - items:
> > > > +          - enum:
> > > > +              - fsl,imx6sl-anatop
> > > > +              - fsl,imx6sll-anatop
> > > > +              - fsl,imx6sx-anatop
> > > > +              - fsl,imx6ul-anatop
> > > > +              - fsl,imx7d-anatop
> > > > +          - const: fsl,imx6q-anatop
> > > > +          - const: syscon
> > > > +          - const: simple-mfd
> > > > +      - items:
> > > > +          - enum:
> > > > +              - fsl,imx8mq-anatop
> > > > +              - fsl,imx8mm-anatop
> > > > +              - fsl,vf610-anatop
> > > > +          - const: syscon
> > > > +      - items:
> > > > +          - enum:
> > > > +              - fsl,imx8mn-anatop
> > > > +              - fsl,imx8mp-anatop
> > > > +          - const: fsl,imx8mm-anatop
> > > > +          - const: syscon
> > > > +
> > > > +  reg:
> > > > +    maxItems: 1
> > > > +
> > > > +  interrupts:
> > > > +    items:
> > > > +      - description: Temperature Sensor
> > > > +      - description: PMU interrupt 1
> > > > +      - description: PMU interrupt 2
> > > > +    minItems: 1
> > > > +    maxItems: 3
> > >
> > > Don't need maxItems.
> > >
> >
> > Got it
> >
> > > > +
> > > > +required:
> > > > +  - compatible
> > > > +  - reg
> > > > +
> > > > +additionalProperties: true
> > >
> > > This should be the case only for common schemas used by other schemas.
> > >
> >
> > Like iomuxc-gpr in patch 6, the problem is that for those nodes with
> > simple-mfd backwards compatibility,
> > there could be possibly some random subnodes since there're generic
> > combo registers.
> > That's why i use additionalProperties true to cover it.
> > Do you think it's ok?
>
> No, because all that should be reviewed rather than random subnodes.
> Otherwise, how do we validate them?

anatop and iomuxc-gpr are not simple mfd devices as they're misc
registers and could contain
various sub misc functions. And those sub functions usually have a
separate dt binding doc which
already covers them and does validation.
The binding here is addressing validation itself. It does not limit
the possible various sub function nodes
which already have a binding doc. Just like a bus node.

If we define them now, it means we may need to keep updating schema when new
user node appear as current dts may not use all possible sub functions.

However, i do agree that defining them all (and may need add more in
the future) helps validation.
But i'm not sure if it's worthy to do it for such cases for a 'bus' node?

Could you help clarify a bit more?

Regards
Aisheng

>
> Rob

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel