All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>
To: Roger Quadros <rogerq@kernel.org>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
	Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
	Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@ti.com>,
	Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>,
	devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
	linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: mtd: ti,gpmc-nand: Add missing 'rb-gpios'
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2021 13:37:05 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20211209133705.621912fe@xps13> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1744af96-3b71-3d41-12e2-a9052684cb35@kernel.org>

Hi Roger,

> >>>> With 'unevaluatedProperties' support implemented, the TI GPMC example
> >>>> has a warning:
> >>>>
> >>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/ti,gpmc.example.dt.yaml: nand@0,0: Unevaluated properties are not allowed ('rb-gpios' was unexpected)
> >>>>
> >>>> Add the missing definition for 'rb-gpios'.    
> >>>
> >>> rb-gpios is already defined in nand-controller.yaml. I seems like the
> >>> real problem is that this file does not refer to it. Can you update the
> >>> fix?    
> >>
> >> I don't think we can refer to nand-controller.yaml right now as we are not
> >> fully compatible with it yet. Please see examples below.  
> > 
> > This is a *very* wrong way of defining a NAND setup. I will take the
> > patch to silence the warning, but please convert this representation to  
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> > the 'new' one. I believe on the driver side it should not be too
> > complicated to support having a few of these properties moved to a NAND
> > chip subnode and still support the below binding. Just be very clear
> > that if the legacy bindings are used, only a single chip is supported.  
> 
> I agree with you. It has been that way since ages. I will look at cleaning
> it up whenever possible for me. I think we will have to support the old
> bindings as well as the new one going forward as many legacy platforms
> are using it.

Yes of course, this is even a primary requirement.

Thanks,
Miquèl

______________________________________________________
Linux MTD discussion mailing list
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>
To: Roger Quadros <rogerq@kernel.org>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
	Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
	Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@ti.com>,
	Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>,
	devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
	linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: mtd: ti,gpmc-nand: Add missing 'rb-gpios'
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2021 13:37:05 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20211209133705.621912fe@xps13> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1744af96-3b71-3d41-12e2-a9052684cb35@kernel.org>

Hi Roger,

> >>>> With 'unevaluatedProperties' support implemented, the TI GPMC example
> >>>> has a warning:
> >>>>
> >>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/ti,gpmc.example.dt.yaml: nand@0,0: Unevaluated properties are not allowed ('rb-gpios' was unexpected)
> >>>>
> >>>> Add the missing definition for 'rb-gpios'.    
> >>>
> >>> rb-gpios is already defined in nand-controller.yaml. I seems like the
> >>> real problem is that this file does not refer to it. Can you update the
> >>> fix?    
> >>
> >> I don't think we can refer to nand-controller.yaml right now as we are not
> >> fully compatible with it yet. Please see examples below.  
> > 
> > This is a *very* wrong way of defining a NAND setup. I will take the
> > patch to silence the warning, but please convert this representation to  
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> > the 'new' one. I believe on the driver side it should not be too
> > complicated to support having a few of these properties moved to a NAND
> > chip subnode and still support the below binding. Just be very clear
> > that if the legacy bindings are used, only a single chip is supported.  
> 
> I agree with you. It has been that way since ages. I will look at cleaning
> it up whenever possible for me. I think we will have to support the old
> bindings as well as the new one going forward as many legacy platforms
> are using it.

Yes of course, this is even a primary requirement.

Thanks,
Miquèl

  reply	other threads:[~2021-12-09 12:38 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-12-06 17:42 [PATCH] dt-bindings: mtd: ti,gpmc-nand: Add missing 'rb-gpios' Rob Herring
2021-12-06 17:42 ` Rob Herring
2021-12-07  8:36 ` Thierry Reding
2021-12-07  8:36   ` Thierry Reding
2021-12-07 12:47 ` Roger Quadros
2021-12-07 12:47   ` Roger Quadros
2021-12-09  9:42 ` Miquel Raynal
2021-12-09  9:42   ` Miquel Raynal
2021-12-09 10:08   ` Roger Quadros
2021-12-09 10:08     ` Roger Quadros
2021-12-09 10:40     ` Miquel Raynal
2021-12-09 10:40       ` Miquel Raynal
2021-12-09 12:11       ` Roger Quadros
2021-12-09 12:11         ` Roger Quadros
2021-12-09 12:37         ` Miquel Raynal [this message]
2021-12-09 12:37           ` Miquel Raynal
2021-12-09 16:50 ` Miquel Raynal
2021-12-09 16:50   ` Miquel Raynal

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20211209133705.621912fe@xps13 \
    --to=miquel.raynal@bootlin.com \
    --cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=richard@nod.at \
    --cc=robh@kernel.org \
    --cc=rogerq@kernel.org \
    --cc=thierry.reding@gmail.com \
    --cc=tony@atomide.com \
    --cc=vigneshr@ti.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.