diff for duplicates of <001901d95263$eac4b460$c04e1d20$@samsung.com>

diff --git a/a/1.txt b/N1/1.txt
index bb47b22..8499a5c 100644
--- a/a/1.txt
+++ b/N1/1.txt
@@ -61,65 +61,57 @@
 > >>>                 };
 > >>> There is no iommu-names property for compatible
 > "samsung,exynos3250-
-> >> mfc, samsung,mfc-v7", that’s why I kept
-> >>>         iommus:
-> >>>           minItems: 1
-> >>>           maxItems: 2
-> >>> I would even go with below if you agree?
-> >>>         iommus:
-> >>>           minItems: 1
-> >>>           maxItems: 2
-> >>>         iommus-names: false
-> >>
-> >> No, I don't agree. Why do you need two IOMMUs for Exynos3250?
-> >>>
-> > Here IOMMUs minItems:1 is meant for Exynos3250 while IOMMUs
-> maxItems:2 meant for samsung,mfc-v5(Exynos 4).
-> > As you suggested
-> > iommus:
-> >   maxItems: 1
-> > iommu-names: false
-> >
-> > won't fit here.
-> > Since IOMMUs maxItems is 2 here for Exynos4. Giving maxItems:2 alone
-> will also break the bindings. Thanks why suggested
-> >          iommus:
-> >            minItems: 1
-> >            maxItems: 2
-> 
-> Are you sure you are putting this in correct place? This is if:then for
-> Exynos3250, isn't it?
-> 
-Its not only for Exynos3250, its along with Exynos4 since their clock properties are same
-allOf:
-  - if:
-      properties:
-        compatible:
-          contains:
-            enum:
-              - samsung,mfc-v5        #Exynos4
-              - samsung,exynos3250-mfc
-    then:
-      properties:
-        clocks:
-          maxItems: 2
-        clock-names:
-          items:
-            - const: mfc
-            - const: sclk_mfc
-        iommus:
-          minItems: 1
-          maxItems: 2
-
-or do I keep different if:then condition for both Exynos3250 and Exynos4 for IOMMUs property ?
-
-> Best regards,
+> >> mfc, samsung,mfc-v7", that’s why I kept\r
+> >>>         iommus:\r
+> >>>           minItems: 1\r
+> >>>           maxItems: 2\r
+> >>> I would even go with below if you agree?\r
+> >>>         iommus:\r
+> >>>           minItems: 1\r
+> >>>           maxItems: 2\r
+> >>>         iommus-names: false\r
+> >>\r
+> >> No, I don't agree. Why do you need two IOMMUs for Exynos3250?\r
+> >>>\r
+> > Here IOMMUs minItems:1 is meant for Exynos3250 while IOMMUs\r
+> maxItems:2 meant for samsung,mfc-v5(Exynos 4).\r
+> > As you suggested\r
+> > iommus:\r
+> >   maxItems: 1\r
+> > iommu-names: false\r
+> >\r
+> > won't fit here.\r
+> > Since IOMMUs maxItems is 2 here for Exynos4. Giving maxItems:2 alone\r
+> will also break the bindings. Thanks why suggested\r
+> >          iommus:\r
+> >            minItems: 1\r
+> >            maxItems: 2\r
+> \r
+> Are you sure you are putting this in correct place? This is if:then for\r
+> Exynos3250, isn't it?\r
+> \r
+Its not only for Exynos3250, its along with Exynos4 since their clock properties are same\r
+allOf:\r
+  - if:\r
+      properties:\r
+        compatible:\r
+          contains:\r
+            enum:\r
+              - samsung,mfc-v5        #Exynos4\r
+              - samsung,exynos3250-mfc\r
+    then:\r
+      properties:\r
+        clocks:\r
+          maxItems: 2\r
+        clock-names:\r
+          items:\r
+            - const: mfc\r
+            - const: sclk_mfc\r
+        iommus:\r
+          minItems: 1\r
+          maxItems: 2\r
+\r
+or do I keep different if:then condition for both Exynos3250 and Exynos4 for IOMMUs property ?\r
+\r
+> Best regards,\r
 > Krzysztof
-
-
-
-
-_______________________________________________
-linux-arm-kernel mailing list
-linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
-http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
diff --git a/a/content_digest b/N1/content_digest
index 98f7f57..8bd9ade 100644
--- a/a/content_digest
+++ b/N1/content_digest
@@ -96,67 +96,59 @@
  "> >>>                 };\n"
  "> >>> There is no iommu-names property for compatible\n"
  "> \"samsung,exynos3250-\n"
- "> >> mfc, samsung,mfc-v7\", that\342\200\231s why I kept\n"
- "> >>>         iommus:\n"
- "> >>>           minItems: 1\n"
- "> >>>           maxItems: 2\n"
- "> >>> I would even go with below if you agree?\n"
- "> >>>         iommus:\n"
- "> >>>           minItems: 1\n"
- "> >>>           maxItems: 2\n"
- "> >>>         iommus-names: false\n"
- "> >>\n"
- "> >> No, I don't agree. Why do you need two IOMMUs for Exynos3250?\n"
- "> >>>\n"
- "> > Here IOMMUs minItems:1 is meant for Exynos3250 while IOMMUs\n"
- "> maxItems:2 meant for samsung,mfc-v5(Exynos 4).\n"
- "> > As you suggested\n"
- "> > iommus:\n"
- "> >   maxItems: 1\n"
- "> > iommu-names: false\n"
- "> >\n"
- "> > won't fit here.\n"
- "> > Since IOMMUs maxItems is 2 here for Exynos4. Giving maxItems:2 alone\n"
- "> will also break the bindings. Thanks why suggested\n"
- "> >          iommus:\n"
- "> >            minItems: 1\n"
- "> >            maxItems: 2\n"
- "> \n"
- "> Are you sure you are putting this in correct place? This is if:then for\n"
- "> Exynos3250, isn't it?\n"
- "> \n"
- "Its not only for Exynos3250, its along with Exynos4 since their clock properties are same\n"
- "allOf:\n"
- "  - if:\n"
- "      properties:\n"
- "        compatible:\n"
- "          contains:\n"
- "            enum:\n"
- "              - samsung,mfc-v5        #Exynos4\n"
- "              - samsung,exynos3250-mfc\n"
- "    then:\n"
- "      properties:\n"
- "        clocks:\n"
- "          maxItems: 2\n"
- "        clock-names:\n"
- "          items:\n"
- "            - const: mfc\n"
- "            - const: sclk_mfc\n"
- "        iommus:\n"
- "          minItems: 1\n"
- "          maxItems: 2\n"
- "\n"
- "or do I keep different if:then condition for both Exynos3250 and Exynos4 for IOMMUs property ?\n"
- "\n"
- "> Best regards,\n"
- "> Krzysztof\n"
- "\n"
- "\n"
- "\n"
- "\n"
- "_______________________________________________\n"
- "linux-arm-kernel mailing list\n"
- "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org\n"
- http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
+ "> >> mfc, samsung,mfc-v7\", that\342\200\231s why I kept\r\n"
+ "> >>>         iommus:\r\n"
+ "> >>>           minItems: 1\r\n"
+ "> >>>           maxItems: 2\r\n"
+ "> >>> I would even go with below if you agree?\r\n"
+ "> >>>         iommus:\r\n"
+ "> >>>           minItems: 1\r\n"
+ "> >>>           maxItems: 2\r\n"
+ "> >>>         iommus-names: false\r\n"
+ "> >>\r\n"
+ "> >> No, I don't agree. Why do you need two IOMMUs for Exynos3250?\r\n"
+ "> >>>\r\n"
+ "> > Here IOMMUs minItems:1 is meant for Exynos3250 while IOMMUs\r\n"
+ "> maxItems:2 meant for samsung,mfc-v5(Exynos 4).\r\n"
+ "> > As you suggested\r\n"
+ "> > iommus:\r\n"
+ "> >   maxItems: 1\r\n"
+ "> > iommu-names: false\r\n"
+ "> >\r\n"
+ "> > won't fit here.\r\n"
+ "> > Since IOMMUs maxItems is 2 here for Exynos4. Giving maxItems:2 alone\r\n"
+ "> will also break the bindings. Thanks why suggested\r\n"
+ "> >          iommus:\r\n"
+ "> >            minItems: 1\r\n"
+ "> >            maxItems: 2\r\n"
+ "> \r\n"
+ "> Are you sure you are putting this in correct place? This is if:then for\r\n"
+ "> Exynos3250, isn't it?\r\n"
+ "> \r\n"
+ "Its not only for Exynos3250, its along with Exynos4 since their clock properties are same\r\n"
+ "allOf:\r\n"
+ "  - if:\r\n"
+ "      properties:\r\n"
+ "        compatible:\r\n"
+ "          contains:\r\n"
+ "            enum:\r\n"
+ "              - samsung,mfc-v5        #Exynos4\r\n"
+ "              - samsung,exynos3250-mfc\r\n"
+ "    then:\r\n"
+ "      properties:\r\n"
+ "        clocks:\r\n"
+ "          maxItems: 2\r\n"
+ "        clock-names:\r\n"
+ "          items:\r\n"
+ "            - const: mfc\r\n"
+ "            - const: sclk_mfc\r\n"
+ "        iommus:\r\n"
+ "          minItems: 1\r\n"
+ "          maxItems: 2\r\n"
+ "\r\n"
+ "or do I keep different if:then condition for both Exynos3250 and Exynos4 for IOMMUs property ?\r\n"
+ "\r\n"
+ "> Best regards,\r\n"
+ > Krzysztof
 
-1ca4bd2a8de40ed0e6acec4cb9583b161d90620191c422fce622f7a44e632483
+20d88bb4c60f559bdc7df202f0fa3d83eaff5e586e85c017992f5a2abb866207
