[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAD=FV=W4k8-Ab+diBic5rbannRr1ZKB=cdHNEOC3Emr0nyzQjQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2022 16:44:51 -0700
From: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, patches@...ts.linux.dev,
"open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS"
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
chrome-platform@...ts.linux.dev,
Guenter Roeck <groeck@...omium.org>,
Craig Hesling <hesling@...omium.org>,
Tom Hughes <tomhughes@...omium.org>,
Alexandru M Stan <amstan@...omium.org>,
Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@...nel.org>,
Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>,
Benson Leung <bleung@...omium.org>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] dt-bindings: cros-ec: Add ChromeOS fingerprint binding
Hi,
On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 6:39 PM Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> @@ -176,6 +189,37 @@ allOf:
> - reg
> - interrupts
>
> + - if:
> + properties:
> + compatible:
> + contains:
> + const: google,cros-ec-fp
> + then:
> + properties:
> + '#address-cells': false
> + '#size-cells': false
> + typec: false
> + ec-pwm: false
> + keyboard-controller: false
> + proximity: false
> + codecs: false
> + cbas: false
> +
> + patternProperties:
> + "^i2c-tunnel[0-9]*$": false
> + "^regulator@[0-9]+$": false
> + "^extcon[0-9]*$": false
> +
> + required:
> + - reset-gpios
> + - boot0-gpios
> + - vdd-supply
> + else:
> + properties:
> + reset-gpios: false
> + boot0-gpios: false
> + vdd-supply: false
Wow, that's a huge pain to have to specify it this way, but I don't
know of any other way to make things happy and still have the
"google,cros-ec-spi" fallback that we decided on having in previous
versions.
> additionalProperties: false
>
> examples:
> @@ -231,4 +275,22 @@ examples:
> compatible = "google,cros-ec-rpmsg";
> };
> };
> +
> + - |
nit: all the other examples have a little "# For <blah>" comment
before them. It's not really necessary, but do we want one here to
match?
In any case, it seems OK to me.
Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists