[PATCH v2 17/21] dt-bindings: ipmi: Convert ASPEED KCS binding to schema

Zev Weiss
2021-04-09T05:44:05Z

On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 12:33:10AM CDT, Andrew Jeffery wrote:
>
>
>On Fri, 9 Apr 2021, at 14:45, Zev Weiss wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 01:27:48AM CDT, Andrew Jeffery wrote:
>> >Given the deprecated binding, improve the ability to detect issues in
>> >the platform devicetrees. Further, a subsequent patch will introduce a
>> >new interrupts property for specifying SerIRQ behaviour, so convert
>> >before we do any further additions.
>> >
>> >Signed-off-by: Andrew Jeffery <andrew@aj.id.au>
>> >---
>> > .../bindings/ipmi/aspeed,ast2400-kcs-bmc.yaml | 92 +++++++++++++++++++
>> > .../bindings/ipmi/aspeed-kcs-bmc.txt | 33 -------
>> > 2 files changed, 92 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
>> > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ipmi/aspeed,ast2400-kcs-bmc.yaml
>> > delete mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ipmi/aspeed-kcs-bmc.txt
>> >
>> >diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ipmi/aspeed,ast2400-kcs-bmc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ipmi/aspeed,ast2400-kcs-bmc.yaml
>> >new file mode 100644
>> >index 000000000000..697ca575454f
>> >--- /dev/null
>> >+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ipmi/aspeed,ast2400-kcs-bmc.yaml
>> >@@ -0,0 +1,92 @@
>> >+# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
>> >+%YAML 1.2
>> >+---
>> >+$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/ipmi/aspeed,ast2400-kcs-bmc.yaml
>> >+$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml
>> >+
>> >+title: ASPEED BMC KCS Devices
>> >+
>> >+maintainers:
>> >+ - Andrew Jeffery <andrew@aj.id.au>
>> >+
>> >+description: |
>> >+ The Aspeed BMC SoCs typically use the Keyboard-Controller-Style (KCS)
>> >+ interfaces on the LPC bus for in-band IPMI communication with their host.
>> >+
>> >+properties:
>> >+ compatible:
>> >+ oneOf:
>> >+ - description: Channel ID derived from reg
>> >+ items:
>> >+ enum:
>> >+ - aspeed,ast2400-kcs-bmc-v2
>> >+ - aspeed,ast2500-kcs-bmc-v2
>> >+ - aspeed,ast2600-kcs-bmc
>>
>> Should this have a "-v2" suffix?
>
>Well, that was kind of a matter of perspective. The 2600 compatible was
>added after we'd done the v2 of the binding for the 2400 and 2500 so it
>never needed correcting. But it is a case of "don't use the deprecated
>properties with the 2600 compatible".
>
>I don't think a change is necessary?
>

It just looked inconsistent with the corresponding string in the
ast_kcs_bmc_match[] table; perhaps that should be changed instead then?

Zev