Re: Phandles

[Kyle Bonnici <kylebonnici@hotmail.com>]

> You cannot have random values. I quoted the DT spec.

Where in the DTS 0.4 spec are property names such as  pwms, clocks
 etc… mandated to be of format <phandle cell …>?

> Well, we don't use discord but IRC... but that github issue also uses
> "pwms = <1 &pwm0 1 20 PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL>;"
> 
> So again - what is "1"?
> 
> I am asking because if you use incorrect value as phandle value, then
> DTC warning is obviously expected and nothing to fix here.

The warning is only valid if ‘1’  is expected to be a phandle which is what I am
Arguing the spec does not mandate this.

> You asked why phandle has to be the first entry in phandle-value type? I
> responded that DT spec makes it.

Which section in DTS 0.4 spec?

> We discuss DTC here, yes? Whether it has or has not a bug? Please help
> me to understand the topic. Why would we care about Zephyr's
> implementation? It's Zephyr's problem and I am not a Zephyr developer. I
> am not saying that it is not important, just saying that I am not the
> audience to discuss it.

I am arguing that the DTC Spec 0.4 does NOT mandate any of these any of these
“cooling_device”, “dmas”, “hwlocks”, “io_channels”, “iommus”, “mboxes”, 
“msi_parent”, “mux_controls”, “phys”, “power_domains”, “pwms”, “resets”, 
“clocks”,  “sound_dai” and “thermal_sensors” 
must follow <phandle cell …>. 

This is only mandated by the dt-schema as far as I understand, that is a used by 
Linux, but not Zephyr and the DTC Making the assumption that this is true for 
all systems

Regards
Kyle