[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4819d89b-c2a4-0c75-27e1-d8122827ceca@foss.st.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2023 11:28:06 +0200
From: Gatien CHEVALLIER <gatien.chevallier@...s.st.com>
To: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
CC: Olivia Mackall <olivia@...enic.com>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
Lionel Debieve <lionel.debieve@...s.st.com>,
<linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/10] dt-bindings: rng: add st,rng-lock-conf
Hello Rob,
On 9/11/23 17:09, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 08, 2023 at 06:51:17PM +0200, Gatien Chevallier wrote:
>> If st,rng-lock-conf is set, the RNG configuration in RNG_CR, RNG_HTCR
>> and RNG_NSCR will be locked. It is supported starting from the RNG
>> version present in the STM32MP13
>
> This should be squashed into the prior binding patch.
>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Gatien Chevallier <gatien.chevallier@...s.st.com>
>> ---
>> .../devicetree/bindings/rng/st,stm32-rng.yaml | 14 ++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rng/st,stm32-rng.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rng/st,stm32-rng.yaml
>> index 59abdc85a9fb..0055f14a8e3f 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rng/st,stm32-rng.yaml
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rng/st,stm32-rng.yaml
>> @@ -37,6 +37,20 @@ required:
>> - reg
>> - clocks
>>
>> +allOf:
>> + - if:
>> + properties:
>> + compatible:
>> + contains:
>> + enum:
>> + - st,stm32mp13-rng
>> + then:
>> + properties:
>> + st,rng-lock-conf:
>> + type: boolean
>> + description: If set, the RNG configuration in RNG_CR, RNG_HTCR and
>> + RNG_NSCR will be locked.
>
> Define the property at the top-level and then restrict its presence in
> a if/then schema.
>
Can you please point me to an example of such case. I can't find a way
to define at the top-level the property then restrict it to specific
compatibles.
Else I'd change
additionalProperties :false to
unevaluatedProperties: false
so the definition of the property is seen.
Best regards,
Gatien
>> +
>> additionalProperties: false
>
> Did you test this property is allowed? No, because additionalProperties
> won't work with properties defined in if/then schemas.
>
>>
>> examples:
>> --
>> 2.25.1
>>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists