[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Zp5mkcDca6jRvOnf@five231003>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2024 19:32:57 +0530
From: Kousik Sanagavarapu <five231003@...il.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
Cc: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ux-watchdog.org>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>, Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>,
Santosh Shilimkar <ssantosh@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] dt-bindings: watchdog: ti,davinci-wdt: convert
to dtschema
On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 03:50:15PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 22/07/2024 15:12, Kousik Sanagavarapu wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 10:15:03AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> On 21/07/2024 18:28, Kousik Sanagavarapu wrote:
> >>> +properties:
> >>> + compatible:
> >>> + enum:
> >>> + - ti,davinci-wdt
> >>> + - ti,keystone-wdt
> >>
> >> This does not match the original binding and commit msg did not explain
> >> why such change is necessary.
> >
> > I don't understand. Do you mean both the compatibles are always
> > compulsory? Meaning
> >
> > compatible:
> > items:
> > - const: ti,davinci-wdt
> > - const: ti,keystone-wdt
>
> Yes, this is what old binding said.
That was what I thought initially too, but the example in the old
binding says otherwise and also the DTS from ti/davinci/da850.dtsi
says
wdt: watchdog@...00 {
compatible = "ti,davinci-wdt";
reg = <0x21000 0x1000>;
clocks = <&pll0_auxclk>;
status = "disabled";
};
Or am I seeing it the wrong way?
> >
> > It is enum because I intended it to align with the subsequent patch
> > which changes DTS.
> >
> >> This also does not match DTS.
> >
> > Yes. I've asked about changing the DTS in the subsequent patch.
> >
>
> Changing the DTS cannot be the reason to affect users and DTS... It's
> tautology. You change DTS because you intent to change DTS?
Not exactly. I thought that the DTS was wrong when it said
compatible = "ti,keystone-wdt", "ti,davinci-wdt";
while it should have been
compatible = "ti,keystone-wdt";
I was not sure about this though and hence marked both the patches as
RFC, in case I was interpretting them the wrong way.
Thanks
Powered by blists - more mailing lists