Re: [PATCH v3] dt-bindings: thermal: qoriq-thermal: Adjust fsl,tmu-range min/maxItems

[Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>]

On Sun, Dec 10, 2023 at 02:52:45PM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 09, 2023 at 05:59:17PM -0300, Fabio Estevam wrote:
> > Hi Conor,
> > 
> > On 09/12/2023 17:23, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > 
> > > You're adding the constraints and items at the wrong level AFAICT.
> > > I think something like the below better matches your constraints?
> > 
> > Thanks for your example.
> > 
> > With your change the fsl,imx93-tmu case works correctly:
> > if I pass the number of fsl,tmu-range entries different than 7,
> > dt_binding_check correctly complains.
> > 
> > However, if I pass 7 entries to fsl,qoriq-tmu it should complain as it
> > expects 4, but it
> 
> btw, unrelated - minItems seems (from a grep) like it needs to be 2 not
> 4.
> 
> > does not.
> > 
> > On top of your patch:
> > 
> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/qoriq-thermal.yaml
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/qoriq-thermal.yaml
> > @@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ additionalProperties: false
> >  examples:
> >    - |
> >      tmu@f0000 {
> > -        compatible = "fsl,imx93-tmu";
> > +        compatible = "fsl,qoriq-tmu";
> >          reg = <0xf0000 0x1000>;
> >          interrupts = <18 2 0 0>;
> >          fsl,tmu-range = <0x000a0000 0x00090026 0x0008004a 0x0001006a 0 0
> > 0>;
> > 
> > make dt_binding_check DT_SCHEMA_FILES=qoriq-thermal.yaml
> >   LINT    Documentation/devicetree/bindings
> >   DTEX
> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/qoriq-thermal.example.dts
> >   CHKDT   Documentation/devicetree/bindings/processed-schema.json
> >   SCHEMA  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/processed-schema.json
> >   DTC_CHK
> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/qoriq-thermal.example.dtb
> > 
> > Any suggestions?
> 
> I dunno. I spent far far longer than I would like to admit trying to fix
> this. Firstly my suggestion here is crap I think and only applies to
> ___matrices___. I think it needs to be the way you had it in your diff,
> but I cannot figure out why it doesn't apply the maxItems constraint.
> 
> Perhaps Rob or Krzysztof can figure out what we were overlooking.
> The diff in question was something like:

I suspect something is going afoul in the fixups. Will look at it 
tomorrow.

Rob