Re: [PATCH v3 12/14] dt-bindings: mtd: gpmi-nand: Fix matching of clocks on different SoCs

Krzysztof Kozlowski
2020-09-07T06:10:15Z

On Fri, Sep 04, 2020 at 04:36:39PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 9:25 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > Driver requires different amount of clocks for different SoCs. Describe
> > these requirements properly to fix dtbs_check warnings like:
> >
> > arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/imx8mm-beacon-kit.dt.yaml: nand-controller@33002000: clock-names:1: 'gpmi_apb' was expected
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>
> >
> > ---
> >
> > Changes since v1:
> > 1. Do not require order of clocks (use pattern).
>
> To the extent that you can, you should fix the order in dts files
> first. If we just adjust the schemas to match the dts files, then
> what's the point?

The DTSes do not have mixed order of clocks between each other, as fair
as I remember. It was fix after Sasha Hauer comment that order is not
necessarily good.

We have the clock-names property, why enforcing the order?

>
> > ---
> > .../devicetree/bindings/mtd/gpmi-nand.yaml | 76 +++++++++++++++----
> > 1 file changed, 61 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/gpmi-nand.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/gpmi-nand.yaml
> > index 28ff8c581837..e08e0a50929e 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/gpmi-nand.yaml
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/gpmi-nand.yaml
> > @@ -9,9 +9,6 @@ title: Freescale General-Purpose Media Interface (GPMI) binding
> > maintainers:
> > - Han Xu <han.xu@nxp.com>
> >
> > -allOf:
> > - - $ref: "nand-controller.yaml"
> > -
> > description: |
> > The GPMI nand controller provides an interface to control the NAND
> > flash chips. The device tree may optionally contain sub-nodes
> > @@ -58,22 +55,10 @@ properties:
> > clocks:
> > minItems: 1
> > maxItems: 5
> > - items:
> > - - description: SoC gpmi io clock
> > - - description: SoC gpmi apb clock
> > - - description: SoC gpmi bch clock
> > - - description: SoC gpmi bch apb clock
> > - - description: SoC per1 bch clock
> >
> > clock-names:
> > minItems: 1
> > maxItems: 5
> > - items:
> > - - const: gpmi_io
> > - - const: gpmi_apb
> > - - const: gpmi_bch
> > - - const: gpmi_bch_apb
> > - - const: per1_bch
> >
> > fsl,use-minimum-ecc:
> > type: boolean
> > @@ -107,6 +92,67 @@ required:
> >
> > unevaluatedProperties: false
> >
> > +allOf:
> > + - $ref: "nand-controller.yaml"
> > +
> > + - if:
> > + properties:
> > + compatible:
> > + contains:
> > + enum:
> > + - fsl,imx23-gpmi-nand
> > + - fsl,imx28-gpmi-nand
> > + then:
> > + properties:
> > + clocks:
> > + items:
> > + - description: SoC gpmi io clock
> > + clock-names:
> > + items:
> > + - const: gpmi_io
> > +
> > + - if:
> > + properties:
> > + compatible:
> > + contains:
> > + enum:
> > + - fsl,imx6q-gpmi-nand
> > + - fsl,imx6sx-gpmi-nand
> > + then:
> > + properties:
> > + clocks:
> > + items:
> > + - description: SoC gpmi io clock
> > + - description: SoC gpmi apb clock
> > + - description: SoC gpmi bch clock
> > + - description: SoC gpmi bch apb clock
> > + - description: SoC per1 bch clock
> > + clock-names:
> > + items:
> > + - pattern: "^(gpmi_(io|apb|bch|bch_apb)|per1_bch)$"
> > + - pattern: "^(gpmi_(io|apb|bch|bch_apb)|per1_bch)$"
> > + - pattern: "^(gpmi_(io|apb|bch|bch_apb)|per1_bch)$"
> > + - pattern: "^(gpmi_(io|apb|bch|bch_apb)|per1_bch)$"
> > + - pattern: "^(gpmi_(io|apb|bch|bch_apb)|per1_bch)$"
>
> BTW, you can make 'items' a schema rather than a list to apply a
> constraint to all entries:
>
> maxItems: 5
> items:
> pattern: "^(gpmi_(io|apb|bch|bch_apb)|per1_bch)$"

Right, I forgot about such syntax.

>
> > +
> > + - if:
> > + properties:
> > + compatible:
> > + contains:
> > + const: fsl,imx7d-gpmi-nand
> > + then:
> > + properties:
> > + clocks:
> > + items:
> > + - description: SoC gpmi io clock
> > + - description: SoC gpmi bch apb clock
> > + clock-names:
> > + minItems: 2
> > + maxItems: 2
>
> You can drop these. It's the default based on the size of 'items'.

Sure.

>
> > + items:
> > + - pattern: "^gpmi_(io|bch_apb)$"
> > + - pattern: "^gpmi_(io|bch_apb)$"
>
> Surely here we can define the order.

Yes, but still the same question as before - do we want the order? Why
enforcing it?

Best regards,
Krzysztof