[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <00e6e500-bf34-44fd-8f6c-f93bed1b1892@linaro.org>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2023 10:37:50 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Ayush Singh <ayushdevel1325@...il.com>,
greybus-dev@...ts.linaro.org
Cc: devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, vaishnav@...gleboard.org,
jkridner@...gleboard.org, nm@...com,
krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, vigneshr@...com,
kristo@...nel.org, robh+dt@...nel.org, conor+dt@...nel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/3] dt-bindings: net: Add ti,cc1352p7
On 05/10/2023 10:21, Ayush Singh wrote:
>>> + clocks:
>>> + maxItems: 2
>>> +
>>> + clock-names:
>>> + description:
>>> + sclk_hf is the main system (mcu and peripherals) clock
>>> + sclk_lf is low-frequency system clock
>> This does no go here, but to clocks. I wrote how it should be done.
>> Don't ignore the feedback.
> It was suggested to use `clock-names` by Nishanth Menon in the previous
> email, so I thought this was what it meant. I will remove clock-names if
> that's better.
clock-names could stay, but this description belongs to "clocks:" how I
wrote last time.
>>> + items:
>>> + - const: sclk_hf
>>> + - const: sclk_lf
>>> +
>>> + reset-gpios: true
>>
>> No, really, why do you change correct code into incorrect one? Who asked
>> you to drop maxItems?
> I found that many bindings (`display/ilitek,ili9486.yaml`,
Panels are constrained by panel-common.
> `iio/dac/adi,ad5758.yaml`) use this pattern instead of `maxItems` for
This I fixed now.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists