Re: [PATCH v2 7/8] dt-bindings: i2c: realtek,rtl9301-i2c: extend for RTL9607C support

Rustam Adilov
2026-03-20T10:39:51Z

On 2026-03-20 09:24, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2026 at 10:57:52PM +0500, Rustam Adilov wrote:
>> Add the "realtek,rtl9607-i2c" compatible for i2c controller on the
>> RTL9607C SoC series.
>>
>> Add a clocks property to the properties since RTL9607C requires it
>> along with the realtek,scl. And because RTL9607C is the only one that
>
> My previous statement:
>
> "Other devices do not *have* any clock input?"
>
> And second one:
>
> "If devices *do not have* clock, you set it as false (see example schema
> and even line above!). Clue here is what I wrote "devices" and "do not
> have"."
>
> So why are you using completely different wording "require" with
> completely different implications?
>
> I did not leave any room for interpreation in my statement "If devices
> *do not have* clock, you set it as false".

I apologize. I was using "require" merely to relate with "required: - property" notation used in bindings.

Would changing the commit message to something similar in vein to [1] be better?

[1] - https://lore.kernel.org/linux-i2c/20250927101931.71575-9-jelonek.jonas@gmail.com/

As for the yaml, my only other interpretation (looking at how others have done it, like fsl,enetc.yaml)

if:
not:
properties:
compatible:
contains:
enum:
- realtek,rtl9607-i2c
then:
properties:
clocks: false

if it is *not* rtl9607-i2c (device that has clocks) then clocks is set to false.
Unless the check should be "if: not: required: clocks then: clocks: false" (like in samsung,s5c73m3.yaml)?
Or is the current configuration (which i got from reading the example-schema.yaml and arm,smmu.yaml)
with "else" fine?

It also doesn't help that i didn't get a response to my question in the previous email towards you in
the v1 patch series but i keep trying my best nonetheless to understand what is needed.

Best,
Rustam