[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b3479058-34f5-1084-d1a4-5c6e2ad16959@loongson.cn>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2022 14:42:12 +0800
From: Liu Peibao <liupeibao@...ngson.cn>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof WilczyĆski <kw@...ux.com>,
Jiaxun Yang <jiaxun.yang@...goat.com>
Cc: chenhuacai@...ngson.cn, lvjianmin@...ngson.cn,
zhuyinbo@...ngson.cn, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] dt-bindings: PCI: loongson: Add skip-scan property
for child node
On 11/4/22 5:53 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 03/11/2022 05:00, Liu Peibao wrote:
>> Add the newly added "skip-scan" property for child node.
>
> This we can see from the patch log. You need to say answer here to "Why".
>
I will take care of this when I submit new patches.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Liu Peibao <liupeibao@...ngson.cn>
>> ---
>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/loongson.yaml | 7 +++++++
>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/loongson.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/loongson.yaml
>> index a8324a9bd002..5c2fe9bf2c78 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/loongson.yaml
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/loongson.yaml
>> @@ -32,6 +32,13 @@ properties:
>> minItems: 1
>> maxItems: 3
>>
>> + child-node:
>
> What is "child-node"?
>
>> + type: object
>> + properties:
>> + skip-scan:
>> + description: avoid scanning this device.
>> + type: boolean
>
> Why? Isn't status for that?
>
> You also need additionalProperties: false/true, depending on what this
> child-node is...
>
> ...and add the case illustrating it in the example.
>
>
I think I did add some vague description.
Since the opinion of Jiaxun in the [PATCH 1/2] is really more elegant
than what I did. I decide follow this opinion and as the `status = "disabled"`
property is existing, I will don't modify this yaml.
Thanks for your detailed review!
BR,
Peibao
Powered by blists - more mailing lists