From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02DC8C7EE23 for ; Wed, 24 May 2023 06:53:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232731AbjEXGxH (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 May 2023 02:53:07 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:38014 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S239799AbjEXGwV (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 May 2023 02:52:21 -0400 Received: from esa.microchip.iphmx.com (esa.microchip.iphmx.com [68.232.154.123]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DAF1DE46; Tue, 23 May 2023 23:51:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=microchip.com; i=@microchip.com; q=dns/txt; s=mchp; t=1684911094; x=1716447094; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to; bh=shsR1rGUNM1EmQeYgf3G+zkshdxAvDAMpbx1W7WU4Gc=; b=qImG/ic6v1owcJ3x2+ZCK460qsnKw8F+OYkAPisrWR4gRoIvmdc09kuJ zsxE9B7ma5/58WH53nZLFpEwu/TGcoXZeukyg+f30XSK6Xg4t0ajBfGcf vbPPL+2Y8dtKIKdQcKGFmT1glnnRoAqIEQP7zh4hgZKE4c//LZ8Bsik43 OVDHrTck6hvDtwZwVea578Ibuxf+XPNwWu8ocfaDjfkh/jEv87Hlf2Yc0 cOzWlTSnFyDGt8rVQVlK/4S9958AGxQx8lO7AFMcTvDxYvhcB1lb2tQ8R xJ6fgdH/z6PT+YyHLMPUJ42LfJgmVUnKnj/k6NFIIzsKhwIxQTWwN6jhb g==; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.00,188,1681196400"; d="scan'208";a="217000363" X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) Received: from unknown (HELO email.microchip.com) ([170.129.1.10]) by esa2.microchip.iphmx.com with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-SHA256; 23 May 2023 23:51:33 -0700 Received: from chn-vm-ex04.mchp-main.com (10.10.85.152) by chn-vm-ex01.mchp-main.com (10.10.85.143) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2507.21; Tue, 23 May 2023 23:51:33 -0700 Received: from wendy (10.10.115.15) by chn-vm-ex04.mchp-main.com (10.10.85.152) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2507.21 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 23 May 2023 23:51:29 -0700 Date: Wed, 24 May 2023 07:51:07 +0100 From: Conor Dooley To: Justin Chen CC: Conor Dooley , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Florian Fainelli Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 2/6] dt-bindings: net: Brcm ASP 2.0 Ethernet controller Message-ID: <20230524-scientist-enviable-7bfff99431cc@wendy> References: <1684878827-40672-1-git-send-email-justin.chen@broadcom.com> <1684878827-40672-3-git-send-email-justin.chen@broadcom.com> <20230523-unfailing-twisting-9cb092b14f6f@spud> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Hey Justin, On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 04:27:12PM -0700, Justin Chen wrote: > On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 3:55=E2=80=AFPM Conor Dooley w= rote: > > On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 02:53:43PM -0700, Justin Chen wrote: > > > > > + compatible: > > > + enum: > > > + - brcm,asp-v2.0 > > > + - brcm,bcm72165-asp > > > + - brcm,asp-v2.1 > > > + - brcm,bcm74165-asp > > > > > + compatible =3D "brcm,bcm72165-asp", "brcm,asp-v2.0"; > > > > You can't do this, as Rob's bot has pointed out. Please test the > > bindings :( You need one of these type of constructs: > > > > compatible: > > oneOf: > > - items: > > - const: brcm,bcm72165-asp > > - const: brcm,asp-v2.0 > > - items: > > - const: brcm,bcm74165-asp > > - const: brcm,asp-v2.1 > > > > Although, given either you or Florian said there are likely to be > > multiple parts, going for an enum, rather than const for the brcm,bcm.. > > entry will prevent some churn. Up to you. > > > Urg so close. Thought it was a trivial change, so didn't bother > retesting the binding. I think I have it right now... >=20 > compatible: > oneOf: > - items: > - enum: > - brcm,bcm72165-asp > - brcm,bcm74165-asp > - enum: > - brcm,asp-v2.0 > - brcm,asp-v2.1 >=20 > Something like this look good? I am still caffeine-less, but this implies that both of "brcm,bcm72165-asp", "brcm,asp-v2.0" _and_ "brcm,bcm72165-asp", "brcm,asp-v2.1" are. I suspect that that is not the case, unless "brcm,asp-v2.0" is a valid fallback for "brcm,asp-v2.1"? The oneOf: also becomes redundant since you only have one items:. > Will submit a v5 tomorrow. BTW, when you do, could you use the address listed in MAINTAINERS rather than the one you used for this version? Cheers, Conor.