[PATCH] dt-bindings: timer: armv7: Don't sanction address/size-cells values

[PATCH] dt-bindings: timer: armv7: Don't sanction address/size-cells values

[Konrad Dybcio]

The driver itself does not read the -cells values (and frankly, it
shouldn't), so there's little sense in only allowing [1, 2] x [1].
Allow any values.

Fixes: 4d2bb3e65035 ("dt-bindings: timer: Convert ARM timer bindings to json-schema")
Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>
---
 .../devicetree/bindings/timer/arm,arch_timer_mmio.yaml      | 6 ++----
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/timer/arm,arch_timer_mmio.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/timer/arm,arch_timer_mmio.yaml
index f6efa48c4256..236e2a05c1ad 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/timer/arm,arch_timer_mmio.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/timer/arm,arch_timer_mmio.yaml
@@ -26,11 +26,9 @@ properties:
     maxItems: 1
     description: The control frame base address
 
-  '#address-cells':
-    enum: [1, 2]
+  '#address-cells': true
 
-  '#size-cells':
-    const: 1
+  '#size-cells': true
 
   ranges: true
 
-- 
2.39.2

Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: timer: armv7: Don't sanction address/size-cells values

[Rob Herring]

On Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 02:28:53AM +0100, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> The driver itself does not read the -cells values (and frankly, it
> shouldn't), 

Agreed, because this is standard address translation and only the DT 
core address functions should read cells props.

> so there's little sense in only allowing [1, 2] x [1].

Why does the timer need 64-bits of address space? It doesn't, so that's 
the reason for restricting it.

> Allow any values.
> 
> Fixes: 4d2bb3e65035 ("dt-bindings: timer: Convert ARM timer bindings to json-schema")
> Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>
> ---
>  .../devicetree/bindings/timer/arm,arch_timer_mmio.yaml      | 6 ++----
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/timer/arm,arch_timer_mmio.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/timer/arm,arch_timer_mmio.yaml
> index f6efa48c4256..236e2a05c1ad 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/timer/arm,arch_timer_mmio.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/timer/arm,arch_timer_mmio.yaml
> @@ -26,11 +26,9 @@ properties:
>      maxItems: 1
>      description: The control frame base address
>  
> -  '#address-cells':
> -    enum: [1, 2]
> +  '#address-cells': true

So 3 address cells is valid?

Until recently (and not yet in a dtschema release), there was no 
constraint on #address-cells or #size-cells values other than the 
#.*-cells constraint of 8. Now it is 3 and 2.

>  
> -  '#size-cells':
> -    const: 1
> +  '#size-cells': true
>  
>    ranges: true
>  
> -- 
> 2.39.2
> 

Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: timer: armv7: Don't sanction address/size-cells values

[Konrad Dybcio]

On 16.03.2023 23:47, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 02:28:53AM +0100, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>> The driver itself does not read the -cells values (and frankly, it
>> shouldn't), 
> 
> Agreed, because this is standard address translation and only the DT 
> core address functions should read cells props.
> 
>> so there's little sense in only allowing [1, 2] x [1].
> 
> Why does the timer need 64-bits of address space? It doesn't, so that's 
> the reason for restricting it.
> 
>> Allow any values.
>>
>> Fixes: 4d2bb3e65035 ("dt-bindings: timer: Convert ARM timer bindings to json-schema")
>> Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>
>> ---
>>  .../devicetree/bindings/timer/arm,arch_timer_mmio.yaml      | 6 ++----
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/timer/arm,arch_timer_mmio.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/timer/arm,arch_timer_mmio.yaml
>> index f6efa48c4256..236e2a05c1ad 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/timer/arm,arch_timer_mmio.yaml
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/timer/arm,arch_timer_mmio.yaml
>> @@ -26,11 +26,9 @@ properties:
>>      maxItems: 1
>>      description: The control frame base address
>>  
>> -  '#address-cells':
>> -    enum: [1, 2]
>> +  '#address-cells': true
> 
> So 3 address cells is valid?
> 
> Until recently (and not yet in a dtschema release), there was no 
> constraint on #address-cells or #size-cells values other than the 
> #.*-cells constraint of 8. Now it is 3 and 2.
Okay, I didn't know that. I suppose we can forget about this patch.

Konrad
> 
>>  
>> -  '#size-cells':
>> -    const: 1
>> +  '#size-cells': true
>>  
>>    ranges: true
>>  
>> -- 
>> 2.39.2
>>