Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] dt-bindings: phy: rockchip,inno-usb2phy: add rk3576

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>]

On 27/09/2024 10:02, Heiko Stuebner wrote:
> Hi Krzysztof,
> 
> Am Freitag, 27. September 2024, 09:30:30 CEST schrieb Krzysztof Kozlowski:
>> On 27/09/2024 09:01, Frank Wang wrote:
>>> Hi Krzysztof,
>>>
>>> On 2024/9/26 22:19, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 26/09/2024 12:32, Frank Wang wrote:
>>>>> +  - if:
>>>>> +      properties:
>>>>> +        compatible:
>>>>> +          contains:
>>>>> +            enum:
>>>>> +              - rockchip,rk3576-usb2phy
>>>>> +    then:
>>>>> +      properties:
>>>>> +        clocks:
>>>>> +          minItems: 3
>>>>> +          maxItems: 3
>>>> Read one more time the example I gave you. Top-level constraints are
>>>> saying max one clock.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Krzysztof
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry for overlooking this, I will set both "clocks" and "clock-names" 
>>> to true, and add the else case below the above codes for the "old" SoCs.
>>> Just like the below.
>>>
>>> -  clocks:
>>> -    maxItems: 1
>>> +  clocks: true
>>>
>>> -  clock-names:
>>> -    const: phyclk
>>> +  clock-names: true
>>
>> For the third time, read the code I gave you. Do you see something like
>> this there? Why doing all the time something different than existing code?
> 
> On vacation right now so late to the party, and somewhat confused :-) .
> 
> I've tried to find the code you mentioned, but did fail.
> In [0] you mention "maybe oneOf". The other replies in that version were
> about the ordering needing to stay for the older phy variants.
> 
> [1] in v2 has that NAK thing and [2] from v3 references that example again
> 
> I am probably just blind, but could use a pointer.

Oh, maybe I did not provide the link?

I apologize. I thought I gave reference to standard example. My bad.

Here it goes:
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.11-rc6/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/qcom,ufs.yaml#L127


Best regards,
Krzysztof