[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3a93b0e3.1b0c.1945a1f4dbd.Coremail.andyshrk@163.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2025 18:46:28 +0800 (CST)
From: "Andy Yan" <andyshrk@....com>
To: "Krzysztof Kozlowski" <krzk@...nel.org>
Cc: heiko@...ech.de, hjc@...k-chips.com, krzk+dt@...nel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org, derek.foreman@...labora.com,
detlev.casanova@...labora.com, daniel@...ishbar.org, robh@...nel.org,
sebastian.reichel@...labora.com,
"Andy Yan" <andy.yan@...k-chips.com>
Subject: Re:Re: [PATCH v11 10/11] dt-bindings: display: vop2: Add rk3576
support
Hi Krzysztof,
At 2025-01-12 17:27:18, "Krzysztof Kozlowski" <krzk@...nel.org> wrote:
>On Sat, Jan 11, 2025 at 07:26:08PM +0800, Andy Yan wrote:
>> # See compatible-specific constraints below.
>> clocks:
>> @@ -120,43 +133,98 @@ allOf:
>> properties:
>> compatible:
>> contains:
>> - const: rockchip,rk3588-vop
>> + enum:
>> + - rockchip,rk3566-vop
>> + - rockchip,rk3568-vop
>> then:
>> properties:
>> clocks:
>> - minItems: 7
>> + minItems: 5
>
>That's wrong, why maxItems became minItems? How is this related to rk3576?
>
>> +
>> clock-names:
>> - minItems: 7
>> + minItems: 5
>
>You are doing here way too much. You need to split reorganizing, so we
>will see what comes new.
>
>And of course you need to explain why you are changing EXISTING binding
>(I am not talking about shuffling around - you change the binding).
How about split this patch to two: One rework the existing binding, make it
more suitable for expanding to include new SoCs.
Then add rk3576 in the second patch ?
>
>
>> +
>> + interrupts:
>> + maxItems: 1
>> +
>> + interrupt-names: false
>>
>> ports:
>> required:
>> - port@0
>> - port@1
>> - port@2
>> - - port@3
>> +
>> + rockchip,vo1-grf: false
>> + rockchip,vop-grf: false
>> + rockchip,pmu: false
>>
>> required:
>> - rockchip,grf
>> - - rockchip,vo1-grf
>> - - rockchip,vop-grf
>> - - rockchip,pmu
>>
>> - else:
>> + - if:
>> + properties:
>> + compatible:
>> + contains:
>> + enum:
>> + - rockchip,rk3576-vop
>> + then:
>> properties:
>> + clocks:
>> + minItems: 5
>
>
>Why minItems? Nothing in this patch makes sense for me. Neither changing
>existing binding nor new binding for rk3576.
>
>> +
>> + clock-names:
>> + minItems: 5
>> +
>> + interrupts:
>> + minItems: 4
>> +
>> + interrupt-names:
>> + minItems: 4
>> +
>> + ports:
>> + required:
>> + - port@0
>> + - port@1
>> + - port@2
>> +
>> rockchip,vo1-grf: false
>> rockchip,vop-grf: false
>> - rockchip,pmu: false
>>
>> + required:
>> + - rockchip,grf
>> + - rockchip,pmu
>> +
>> + - if:
>> + properties:
>> + compatible:
>> + contains:
>> + const: rockchip,rk3588-vop
>> + then:
>> + properties:
>> clocks:
>> - maxItems: 5
>> + minItems: 7
>
>And again weird change to the binding.
>
>Best regards,
>Krzysztof
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Linux-rockchip mailing list
>Linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org
>http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip
Powered by blists - more mailing lists