[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2609cb4e-df0e-f4b5-b89f-37287bbc569d@linaro.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 08:42:41 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>
Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@...ertech.it>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: rtc: Add TI K3 RTC devicetree bindings
documentation
On 13/04/2022 00:17, Nishanth Menon wrote:
>>> + assigned-clocks:
>>> + description: |
>>> + override default osc32k parent clock reference to the osc32k clock entry
>>> + maxItems: 1
>>> +
>>> + assigned-clock-parents:
>>> + description: |
>>> + override default osc32k parent clock phandle of the new parent clock of osc32k
>>> + maxItems: 1
>>
>> Usually assigned-clockXXX are not needed in the bindings. Is here
>> something different? They are put only to indicate something special.
>
> I wonder if I should rather use unevaluatedproperties instead? If I use
> additionalProperties: False, then the second example below fails.
>
Are you sure it fails? I just checked and it worked in my case. This
AFAIR was working since some time (or fixed some time ago), so maybe
update your dtschema?
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists