[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAL_JsqKaGFfQNwR3HqRnVs3K7SUtevpoG6tEDntM0SNfyyp6AQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2023 12:12:42 -0600
From: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] dt-bindings: net: marvell,orion-mdio: Drop "reg"
sizes schema
On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 10:23 AM Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 05:24:55PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> > Defining the size of register regions is not really in scope of what
> > bindings need to cover. The schema for this is also not completely correct
> > as a reg entry can be variable number of cells for the address and size,
> > but the schema assumes 1 cell.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
>
> Does this not also remove restrictions on what the number in the reg
> entry is actually allowed to be?
Yes, that's what I mean with the first sentence. We don't do this
anywhere else with the exception of some I2C devices with fixed
addresses. Keying off of the interrupt property also seems
questionable. If the register size is different, that should be a
different compatible.
I only noticed this when I happened to remove "definitions/cell" and
this broke. That wasn't really intended to be public.
Rob
Powered by blists - more mailing lists