[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d7117060-734a-4f8b-bb05-a9a9473a53d1@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 15:35:12 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Shengjiu Wang <shengjiu.wang@...il.com>
Cc: Shengjiu Wang <shengjiu.wang@....com>, lgirdwood@...il.com,
broonie@...nel.org, robh@...nel.org, krzk+dt@...nel.org,
conor+dt@...nel.org, linux-sound@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
shawnguo@...nel.org, s.hauer@...gutronix.de, kernel@...gutronix.de,
festevam@...il.com, imx@...ts.linux.dev, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] ASoC: dt-bindings: fsl,xcvr: Adjust the number of
interrupts
On 26/06/2024 11:34, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> items:
>>>> - description: WAKEUPMIX Audio XCVR Interrupt 1
>>>> - description: WAKEUPMIX Audio XCVR Interrupt 2
>>>> + - description: SPDIF wakeup interrupt from PHY
>>>> minItems: 1
>>>>
>>>> clocks:
>>>> @@ -88,6 +89,7 @@ required:
>>>> - dma-names
>>>>
>>>> allOf:
>>>> + - $ref: dai-common.yaml#
>>>> - if:
>>>> properties:
>>>> compatible:
>>>> @@ -112,7 +114,7 @@ allOf:
>>>> else:
>>>> properties:
>>>> interrupts:
>>>> - maxItems: 1
>>>> + maxItems: 3
>>>
>>> I have doubts this was tested. The existing example should fail,
>>> although I did not see any reports. Not sure why.
>>
>> it is tested, because the minItems is 1. so the example can pass
>>
>
> That's a very unexpected change in dtschema. It indeed passes, but is
> not correct. Why interrupts are flexible? This should be constrained.
> Let's wait for Rob's confirmation that this is not a bug in dtschema.
Yep we need here minItems as well, so this is strictly constrained or
please explain why this should be flexible.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists