Re: [PATCH 02/10] dt-bindings: soc: samsung: exynos-pmu: allow power domains as child on g101

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>]

On 07/10/2025 01:43, André Draszik wrote:
> The power domains are a property of / implemented in the PMU. As such,
> they should be modelled as child nodes of the PMU.
> 
> Update the example while at it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: André Draszik <andre.draszik@linaro.org>
> 
> ---
> Note: Ideally, the newly added properties (ranges, etc.) should only be
> 'required' if "^power-domain@[0-9a-f]+$" exists as a patternProperty,
> as they're needed only in that case. As-is, this patch now causes
> warnings for existing DTs as they don't specify the new properties (and
> they shouldn't need to). Only if DTs are updated to include
> power-domains, such an update should also add the new properties.
> 
> I've not been able to come up with the correct schema syntax to achieve
> that. dependencies, dependentRequired, and dependentSchemas don't seem
> to support patterns. Similarly,
>   - if:
>       required:
>         - ...
>     then:
>       required:
>         - ...
> 
> doesn't allow patterns in the 'if' block (or I didn't get the syntax
> right).
> ---
>  .../bindings/soc/samsung/exynos-pmu.yaml           | 53 +++++++++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 52 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/samsung/exynos-pmu.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/samsung/exynos-pmu.yaml
> index f0fb24156da9b8980dcfd5339ae75f12a71cf6d6..c2db1cbb969a9a6fea5208dc2990f2144fa480e6 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/samsung/exynos-pmu.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/samsung/exynos-pmu.yaml
> @@ -93,6 +93,14 @@ properties:
>      minItems: 1
>      maxItems: 32
>  
> +  '#address-cells':
> +    const: 1
> +
> +  '#size-cells':
> +    const: 1
> +
> +  ranges: true
> +
>    dp-phy:
>      $ref: /schemas/phy/samsung,dp-video-phy.yaml
>      unevaluatedProperties: false
> @@ -138,7 +146,7 @@ required:
>    - compatible
>    - reg
>  
> -additionalProperties: false
> +unevaluatedProperties: false

No. Properties must be defined in top level, as explained in writing
schema. If this is getting to complex, GS101 can be moved to its own
binding.

Best regards,
Krzysztof