[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <651930f2-37a6-4628-e232-880d41c0997c@linaro.org>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2022 15:45:08 +0300
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com>
Cc: devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] dt-bindings: lan9662-otpc: document Lan9662 OTPC
On 31/08/2022 13:44, Horatiu Vultur wrote:
> The 08/31/2022 10:28, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>
> Hi Krzysztof,
>
>>> +
>>> +properties:
>>> + compatible:
>>> + oneOf:
>>> + - items:
>>> + - const: microchip,lan9662-otpc
>>> + - const: microchip,lan9668-otpc
>>> + - enum:
>>> + - microchip,lan9662-otpc
>>
>> This is not what I wrote and this does not make sense. You now listed
>> twice 9662 and 9668 does not have its entry.
>
> As you figured it out, I am quite noob at these bindings.
> The only difference between what you wrote and what I wrote is the order
> under items. So the order matters?
Yes, because it is not an enum but list. What you wrote is:
compatible = "microchip,lan9662-otpc", "microchip,lan9668-otpc"
and you would see the problems if you tested it with lan9668.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists