[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+V-a8uQ44AXYoGuPtioKC7wObdz7vQHYniJyD=MRdW8vomqQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2025 15:19:14 +0100
From: "Lad, Prabhakar" <prabhakar.csengg@...il.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
Cc: Clément Léger <clement.leger@...tlin.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>, Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>, Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>,
linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Biju Das <biju.das.jz@...renesas.com>,
Fabrizio Castro <fabrizio.castro.jz@...esas.com>,
Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@...renesas.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 01/10] dt-bindings: net: pcs: renesas,rzn1-miic:
Document RZ/T2H and RZ/N2H SoCs
Hi Krzysztof,
On Tue, Sep 2, 2025 at 1:21 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On 02/09/2025 14:17, Lad, Prabhakar wrote:
> >>> power-domains:
> >>> maxItems: 1
> >>> @@ -60,11 +77,11 @@ patternProperties:
> >>> properties:
> >>> reg:
> >>> description: MII Converter port number.
> >>> - enum: [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
> >>
> >> Why?
> >>
> > If I keep this here and just adjust the below for RZ/T2H case I do get errors:
> >
> > reg:
> > enum: [0, 1, 2, 3]
> >
> >
> > arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/r9a09g077m44-rzt2h-evk.dtb: ethss@...10000
> > (renesas,r9a09g077-miic): mii-conv@0:reg:0:0: 0 is not one of [1, 2,
> > 3, 4, 5]
> > from schema $id:
> > http://devicetree.org/schemas/net/pcs/renesas,rzn1-miic.yaml#
> >
> > Any pointers on how to handle this case?
>
> So please grow this with '0' to cover the widest choices, which you then
> narrow in individual if:then:.
>
Got you, thank you for the clarification.
> The trouble with your if:then: is that they are huge and they also nest
> patterns and if:then:.
>
> This often is less maintainable, so maybe you should consider having two
> separate binding files? You can have also common-shared properties.
> Anyway, I am fine with current approach of one binding as well, so up to
> you folks.
>
Ok, I will stay with the current approach.
Cheers,
Prabhakar
Powered by blists - more mailing lists