From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Laurent Pinchart Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 01/14] dt-bindings: display: renesas,cmm: Add R-Car CMM documentation Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2019 15:20:59 +0300 Message-ID: <20190905122059.GK5035@pendragon.ideasonboard.com> References: <20190825135154.11488-1-jacopo+renesas@jmondi.org> <20190825135154.11488-2-jacopo+renesas@jmondi.org> <20190826075943.h7ivwagape3glym5@uno.localdomain> <20190826101550.GB5031@pendragon.ideasonboard.com> <20190830180108.mlei4wbfn3mktj23@uno.localdomain> <20190905115017.GI5035@pendragon.ideasonboard.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: Jacopo Mondi , Jacopo Mondi , Kieran Bingham , Simon Horman , Ulrich Hecht , David Airlie , Daniel Vetter , Koji Matsuoka , muroya@ksk.co.jp, VenkataRajesh.Kalakodima@in.bosch.com, Harsha.ManjulaMallikarjun@in.bosch.com, Linux-Renesas , DRI Development , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" , Rob Herring , Mark Rutland List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Hi Geert, On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 02:05:34PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 1:50 PM Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 08:01:09PM +0200, Jacopo Mondi wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 01:15:50PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > > > How about converting this binding to yaml alreay ? It should be fairly > > > > simple. > > > > > > I'm trying to, and I'm having my portion of fun time at it. > > > > > > The definition of the schema itself seems good, but I wonder, is this > > > the first renesas schema we have? Because it seems to me the schema > > > validator is having an hard time to digest the examplea 'clocks' and > > > 'power-domains' properties, which have 1 phandle and 2 specifiers and 1 > > > phandle and 1 specifier respectively for Rensas SoCs. > > > > > > In other words, if in the example I have: > > > > > > examples: > > > - | > > > cmm0: cmm@fea40000 { > > > compatible = "renesas,r8a7796-cmm"; > > > reg = <0 0xfea40000 0 0x1000>; > > > clocks = <&cpg 711> <---- 1 phandle + 1 specifier > > > resets = <&cpg 711>; > > > power-domains = <&sysc>; <---- 1 phandle > > > }; > > > > > > The schema validation is good. > > > > > > While if I use an actual example > > > - | > > > cmm0: cmm@fea40000 { > > > compatible = "renesas,r8a7796-cmm"; > > > reg = <0 0xfea40000 0 0x1000>; > > > clocks = <&cpg CPG_MOD 711> <---- 1 phandle + 2 specifier > > > resets = <&cpg 711>; > > > power-domains = <&sysc R8A7796_PD_ALWAYS_ON>; <---- 1 phandle > > > }; + 1 specfier > > > > > > The schema validation fails... > > > Error: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/renesas,cmm.example.dts:20.29-30 syntax error > > > FATAL ERROR: Unable to parse input tree > > > > > > Are clocks properties with > 2 entries and power-domains properties with > > > > 1 entries supported? > > > > > > Because from what I read here: > > > https://github.com/robherring/yaml-bindings/blob/master/schemas/clock/clock.yaml > > > "The length of a clock specifier is defined by the value of a #clock-cells > > > property in the clock provider node." > > > > > > And that's expected, but is the examples actually validated against the > > > clock provider pointed by the phandle? Because in that case, if we had a > > > yaml schema for the cpg-mssr provider, it would indeed specify clock-cells=2. > > > > > > Do we need a schema for cpg-mssr first, or am I doing something else > > > wrong? > > > > I think you just need to #include the headers that define CPG_MOD and > > R8A7796_PD_ALWAYS_ON. > > If that helps, you might want to replace the symbols in the examples by their > actual values (1 resp. 32). > > And perhaps keep the symbols as comments? > > clocks = <&cpg 1 /* CPG_MOD */ 711>; > power-domains = <&sysc 32 /* R8A7796_PD_ALWAYS_ON */>; I think adding the required #include at the beginning of the example is a better solution. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart