[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d0b6f2c9-8e85-a38b-e2b1-14f197ca1ea0@linaro.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2023 10:30:52 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Komal Bajaj <quic_kbajaj@...cinc.com>,
Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/6] dt-bindings: nvmem: sec-qfprom: Add bindings for
secure qfprom
On 26/06/2023 10:22, Komal Bajaj wrote:
>>
>>> +
>>> +allOf:
>>> + - $ref: nvmem.yaml#
>>> +
>>> +properties:
>>> + compatible:
>>> + items:
>>> + - enum:
>>> + - qcom,qdu1000-sec-qfprom
>>> + - const: qcom,sec-qfprom
>>> +
>>> + reg:
>>> + items:
>>> + - description: The secure qfprom corrected region.
>>> +
>>> + # Needed if any child nodes are present.
>>> + "#address-cells":
>>> + const: 1
>>> + "#size-cells":
>>> + const: 1
>> Drop both, they are not needed.
>
> I didn't get it. Can you please explain why these are not needed as this
> node will have child nodes which will use single value for address and size.
I suspect they are already defined. Do other bindings (for cases with
children) have them? If not, why here it would be different?
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists