Re: [PATCH 16/28] dt-bindings: dpll: Add support for Microchip Azurite chip family

[Ivan Vecera <ivecera@redhat.com>]

On 10. 04. 25 9:01 dop., Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 09/04/2025 09:19, Ivan Vecera wrote:
>>>> +
>>>> +maintainers:
>>>> +  - Ivan Vecera <ivecera@redhat.com>
>>>> +
>>>> +properties:
>>>> +  compatible:
>>>> +    enum:
>>>> +      - microchip,zl3073x-i2c
>>>> +      - microchip,zl3073x-spi
>>>
>>> 1. No, you do not get two compatibles. Only one.
>>
>> Will split to two files, one for i2c and one for spi.
> 
> No. One device, one compatible.

OK, get it now. I thought that I need to have separate compatible for 
each bus access type.

>>> 2. What is 'x'? Wildcard? If so, drop and use specific compatibles.
>>
>> Microchip refers to the ZL3073x as a family of compatible DPLL chips
>> with the same features. There is no need to introduce separate
>> compatible string for each of them.
> 
> So a wildcard, thus drop. Use full product names. Google search gives me
> no products for ZL3073x but gives me ZL30735.

I will use more appropriate microchip,azurite compatible.

>>
>>>> +
>>>> +  reg:
>>>> +    maxItems: 1
>>>> +
>>>> +required:
>>>> +  - compatible
>>>> +  - reg
>>>> +
>>>> +allOf:
>>>> +  - $ref: /schemas/dpll/dpll-device.yaml
>>>> +
>>>> +unevaluatedProperties: false
>>>> +
>>>> +examples:
>>>> +  - |
>>>> +    i2c {
>>>> +      #address-cells = <1>;
>>>> +      #size-cells = <0>;
>>>> +
>>>> +      dpll@70 {
>>>> +        compatible = "microchip,zl3073x-i2c";
>>>
>>>> +        #address-cells = <0>;
>>>> +        #size-cells = <0>;
>>>
>>> Again, why do you need them if you are not using these two?
>>
>> The dpll-device.yaml defines them as required. Shouldn't they be
>> specified explicitly?
> 
> But you do not use them. Where is any child node?

I though I have to specify this due to existence of 'input-pins' and 
'output-pins' in the example.

>>
>>>> +        reg = <0x70>;
>>>> +        status = "okay";
>>>
>>> Drop
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
> 

Thanks,
Ivan