Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] dt-bindings: watchdog: factor out RZ/V2H(P) watchdog

[Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>]

Hi Wolfram,

On Mon, 6 Oct 2025 at 08:30, wsa+renesas
<wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com> wrote:
> > > > > +      - enum:
> > > > > +          - renesas,r9a09g057-wdt    # RZ/V2H(P)
> > > > > +          - renesas,r9a09g077-wdt    # RZ/T2H
> > > > > +
> > > > > +      - items:
> > > > > +          - const: renesas,r9a09g087-wdt # RZ/N2H
> > > > > +          - const: renesas,r9a09g077-wdt # RZ/T2H
> >
> > I guess a comment like # fallback RZ/T2H here will avoid confusion.
>
> Hmmm, if we add such a comment for every fallback, this will be quite
> some churn, I would think. My favourite solution would be to swap the
> 'items' entry with the 'enum'. So, everything with a fallback comes
> first, and the 'plain' entries last. But what do others think?

We do have "fallback" comments in other places, and I think they do
help in understanding compatible naming schemes.

Would it be possible to handle this in dt-schema?
Currently we have to write:

      - const: vendor,soc1-ip

      - items:
          - enum:
              - vendor,soc2-ip
              - vendor,soc3-ip
          - const: vendor,soc1-ip       # fallback

If dt-schema would automatically drop duplicates of the fallback,
we could just write:

      - items:
          - enum:
              - vendor,soc1-ip
              - vendor,soc2-ip
              - vendor,soc3-ip
          - const: vendor,soc1-ip       # fallback

What do you think?
Thanks!

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

-- 
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds