Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: mmp-dma: convert to YAML

["Duje Mihanović" <duje.mihanovic@skole.hr>]

On Sunday, January 28, 2024 6:28:03 PM CET Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 27, 2024 at 05:53:45PM +0100, Duje Mihanović wrote:
> > +allOf:
> > +  - $ref: dma-controller.yaml#
> > +  - if:
> > +      properties:
> > +        compatible:
> > +          contains:
> > +            enum:
> > +              - marvell,adma-1.0
> > +              - marvell,pxa910-squ
> > +    then:
> > +      properties:
> > +        asram:
> > +          description:
> > +            phandle to the SRAM pool
> > +          minItems: 1
> > +          maxItems: 1
> > +        iram:
> 
> > +          maxItems:
> These properties are not mentioned in the text binding, nor commit
> message. Where did they come from?

Both of them can be found in arch/arm/boot/dts/marvell/mmp2.dtsi. There is one 
major difference between the two: iram is not mentioned at all by the mmp_tdma 
driver (on the other hand, asram is not only used but also required for a 
successful probe), but I left it here as it's still found in the MMP2 dtsi. On 
second thought it should probably be dropped both here and in the dtsi.

> That said, for properties that are only usable on some platforms, please
> define them at the top level and conditionally permit/constrain them.

Could you please point me to how to do so if this if/then does not do it 
properly?

> > +unevaluatedProperties: false
> > +
> > +examples:
> > +  # Peripheral controller
> > +  - |
> > +    pdma0: dma-controller@d4000000 {
> 
> The label is not needed here or below.
> In fact, I'd probably delete the second example as it shows nothing that
> the first one does not.

I'd rather add the asram property in the second node (adding onto the above 
comment, I now see that it shouldn't have even passed dt_binding_check because 
of the missing asram, but it did).

Regards,
-- 
Duje