Re: [PATCH 05/18] dt-bindings: mfd: adp5585: document adp5589 I/O expander

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>]

On 14/03/2025 10:38, Nuno Sá wrote:
> On Fri, 2025-03-14 at 09:49 +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 02:19:22PM +0000, Nuno Sá wrote:
>>>    reg:
>>>      maxItems: 1
>>> @@ -63,13 +70,26 @@ allOf:
>>>        properties:
>>>          gpio-reserved-ranges: false
>>>      else:
>>> -      properties:
>>> -        gpio-reserved-ranges:
>>> -          maxItems: 1
>>> -          items:
>>> +      if:
>>
>> Do not nest if:then:else:if:then, it leads to code impossible to read.
>> Just provide if-then cases for each of your variant.
>>
> 
> Alright...
> 
>>
>>
>>
>>> +        properties:
>>> +          compatible:
>>> +            contains:
>>> +              enum:
>>> +                - adi,adp5585-00
>>> +                - adi,adp5585-02
>>> +                - adi,adp5585-03
>>> +                - adi,adp5585-04
>>> +      then:
>>> +        properties:
>>> +          gpio-reserved-ranges:
>>> +            maxItems: 1
>>
>> one tem?
>>
>>>              items:
>>> -              - const: 5
>>> -              - const: 1
>>
>> But here two...
>>
>>> +              items:
>>> +                - const: 5
>>> +                - const: 1
>>
>> and this is confusing. I don't get what you want to express.
>>
> 
> I just kept it as before (maybe I messed up in some other way but the 2 items:

No, your code is very different.

> were already in the binding):

I see only one GPIO range.

> 
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.14-rc6/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/adi,adp5585.yaml#L70
> 
> If this is not needed I can simplifying during this patch. Is this sufficient?
> 
> ...
> 
>         gpio-reserved-ranges:
>           maxItems: 1
>           items:
>             - const: 5
>             - const: 1

Again, different code and not correct as you have now two ranges. Open
original code - it is clear not the same. So two tries - your patch and
code above - are different but I don't get why you claim your code is
identical.

Best regards,
Krzysztof