* [PATCH] dt-bindings: mfd: Add Renesas R2A11302FT PMIC
@ 2025-10-09 18:12 Wolfram Sang
2025-10-10 2:37 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Wolfram Sang @ 2025-10-09 18:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-renesas-soc
Cc: Wolfram Sang, Geert Uytterhoeven, Lee Jones, Rob Herring,
Krzysztof Kozlowski, Conor Dooley, Magnus Damm, devicetree
This PMIC is referenced in upstream DTs for the Renesas Lager and
Koelsch boards. Sadly, we don't have documentation for more complete
bindings, but due to the spi-cpol/cpha it also doesn't belong to trivial
devices. So, start with this minimal binding description with the facts
that we do know:
Fixes:
arch/arm/boot/dts/renesas/r8a7790-lager.dtb: /soc/spi@e6e10000/pmic@0: failed to match any schema with compatible: ['renesas,r2a11302ft']
arch/arm/boot/dts/renesas/r8a7791-koelsch.dtb: /soc/spi@e6e20000/pmic@0: failed to match any schema with compatible: ['renesas,r2a11302ft']
Reviewed-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>
Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>
---
Change since RFC [1]:
* dropped "unevaluatedProperties" because we know this binding is not
complete currently
* removed 'pmic' label from the example
* proper patch description
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250929083449.14393-1-wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com
.../bindings/mfd/renesas,r2a11302ft.yaml | 49 +++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 49 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/renesas,r2a11302ft.yaml
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/renesas,r2a11302ft.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/renesas,r2a11302ft.yaml
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..e978b359b3ec
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/renesas,r2a11302ft.yaml
@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause)
+%YAML 1.2
+---
+$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/mfd/renesas,r2a11302ft.yaml#
+$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
+
+title: Renesas R2A11302FT Power Supply ICs for R-Car
+
+maintainers:
+ - Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>
+
+properties:
+ compatible:
+ const: renesas,r2a11302ft
+
+ reg:
+ maxItems: 1
+
+ spi-max-frequency:
+ maximum: 6000000
+
+ spi-cpol: true
+
+ spi-cpha: true
+
+required:
+ - compatible
+ - reg
+ - spi-cpol
+ - spi-cpha
+
+allOf:
+ - $ref: /schemas/spi/spi-peripheral-props.yaml#
+
+examples:
+ - |
+ spi {
+ #address-cells = <1>;
+ #size-cells = <0>;
+
+ pmic@0 {
+ compatible = "renesas,r2a11302ft";
+ reg = <0>;
+ spi-max-frequency = <6000000>;
+ spi-cpol;
+ spi-cpha;
+ };
+ };
+...
--
2.47.2
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: mfd: Add Renesas R2A11302FT PMIC
2025-10-09 18:12 [PATCH] dt-bindings: mfd: Add Renesas R2A11302FT PMIC Wolfram Sang
@ 2025-10-10 2:37 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2025-10-10 7:58 ` Wolfram Sang
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski @ 2025-10-10 2:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Wolfram Sang, linux-renesas-soc
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven, Lee Jones, Rob Herring, Krzysztof Kozlowski,
Conor Dooley, Magnus Damm, devicetree
On 09/10/2025 20:12, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> This PMIC is referenced in upstream DTs for the Renesas Lager and
> Koelsch boards. Sadly, we don't have documentation for more complete
> bindings, but due to the spi-cpol/cpha it also doesn't belong to trivial
That's not a problem.
> devices. So, start with this minimal binding description with the facts
> that we do know:
>
> Fixes:
> arch/arm/boot/dts/renesas/r8a7790-lager.dtb: /soc/spi@e6e10000/pmic@0: failed to match any schema with compatible: ['renesas,r2a11302ft']
> arch/arm/boot/dts/renesas/r8a7791-koelsch.dtb: /soc/spi@e6e20000/pmic@0: failed to match any schema with compatible: ['renesas,r2a11302ft']
>
> Reviewed-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>
> Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>
> ---
>
> Change since RFC [1]:
Please start using b4. This is v2. Your wrong numbering makes any
comparisons broken. Try yourself with b4.
> * dropped "unevaluatedProperties" because we know this binding is not
> complete currently
You cannot. Bindings must be complete (or complete "enough"), otherwise
I see no point in accepting them.
It is like you sent driver code which does not build because you did not
write half of it. Why would we want it?
> * removed 'pmic' label from the example
> * proper patch description
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250929083449.14393-1-wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com
>
> .../bindings/mfd/renesas,r2a11302ft.yaml | 49 +++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 49 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/renesas,r2a11302ft.yaml
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/renesas,r2a11302ft.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/renesas,r2a11302ft.yaml
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..e978b359b3ec
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/renesas,r2a11302ft.yaml
> @@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause)
> +%YAML 1.2
> +---
> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/mfd/renesas,r2a11302ft.yaml#
> +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
> +
> +title: Renesas R2A11302FT Power Supply ICs for R-Car
> +
> +maintainers:
> + - Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>
> +
> +properties:
> + compatible:
> + const: renesas,r2a11302ft
> +
> + reg:
> + maxItems: 1
> +
> + spi-max-frequency:
> + maximum: 6000000
> +
> + spi-cpol: true
> +
> + spi-cpha: true
> +
> +required:
> + - compatible
> + - reg
> + - spi-cpol
> + - spi-cpha
> +
> +allOf:
> + - $ref: /schemas/spi/spi-peripheral-props.yaml#
> +
Missing unevaluatedProps. See writing schema (and any of my talks).
> +examples:
> + - |
> + spi {
> + #address-cells = <1>;
> + #size-cells = <0>;
> +
> + pmic@0 {
> + compatible = "renesas,r2a11302ft";
Messed indentation.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: mfd: Add Renesas R2A11302FT PMIC
2025-10-10 2:37 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
@ 2025-10-10 7:58 ` Wolfram Sang
2025-10-10 8:04 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Wolfram Sang @ 2025-10-10 7:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski
Cc: linux-renesas-soc, Geert Uytterhoeven, Lee Jones, Rob Herring,
Krzysztof Kozlowski, Conor Dooley, Magnus Damm, devicetree
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1952 bytes --]
Hi Krzysztof,
thanks for the review!
On Fri, Oct 10, 2025 at 04:37:14AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 09/10/2025 20:12, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > This PMIC is referenced in upstream DTs for the Renesas Lager and
> > Koelsch boards. Sadly, we don't have documentation for more complete
> > bindings, but due to the spi-cpol/cpha it also doesn't belong to trivial
>
> That's not a problem.
It is not? I found this mail[1] saying that enabling spi-cpol et al.
will disable sanity checks for other trivial devices.
Adding this PMIC to trivial devices would be my fav solution, actually.
[1] https://www.spinics.net/lists//devicetree/msg731369.html
> > Change since RFC [1]:
>
> Please start using b4. This is v2. Your wrong numbering makes any
> comparisons broken. Try yourself with b4.
I checked the link [1] I gave last mail and the mail said "[RFC PATCH]".
Looks correct to me, am I overlooking something? I am open to switching
to b4, but I need a time slot for that.
> > * dropped "unevaluatedProperties" because we know this binding is not
> > complete currently
>
> You cannot. Bindings must be complete (or complete "enough"), otherwise
> I see no point in accepting them.
I can see that.
> It is like you sent driver code which does not build because you did not
> write half of it. Why would we want it?
I would agree if it does not build. But it does build. So, the proper
comparison for me is a limited driver which probes and gives access to
the device. Features can be implemented incrementally. This bindings
works/builds with the few information we have. It even removes a
warning.
My reasoning is that DT describes HW. And on the Renesas Lager board,
this PMIC *is* connected to the SPI controller. I am open to removing
this node because we don't have a driver. That would mean, though,
otherwise rare to find information is lost.
All the best,
Wolfram
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: mfd: Add Renesas R2A11302FT PMIC
2025-10-10 7:58 ` Wolfram Sang
@ 2025-10-10 8:04 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2025-10-10 8:19 ` Wolfram Sang
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski @ 2025-10-10 8:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Wolfram Sang
Cc: linux-renesas-soc, Geert Uytterhoeven, Lee Jones, Rob Herring,
Krzysztof Kozlowski, Conor Dooley, Magnus Damm, devicetree
On 10/10/2025 09:58, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> Hi Krzysztof,
>
> thanks for the review!
>
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2025 at 04:37:14AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 09/10/2025 20:12, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>>> This PMIC is referenced in upstream DTs for the Renesas Lager and
>>> Koelsch boards. Sadly, we don't have documentation for more complete
>>> bindings, but due to the spi-cpol/cpha it also doesn't belong to trivial
>>
>> That's not a problem.
>
> It is not? I found this mail[1] saying that enabling spi-cpol et al.
> will disable sanity checks for other trivial devices.
>
> Adding this PMIC to trivial devices would be my fav solution, actually.
I meant, that not being complete is not yet problem.
>
> [1] https://www.spinics.net/lists//devicetree/msg731369.html
>
>>> Change since RFC [1]:
>>
>> Please start using b4. This is v2. Your wrong numbering makes any
>> comparisons broken. Try yourself with b4.
>
> I checked the link [1] I gave last mail and the mail said "[RFC PATCH]".
> Looks correct to me, am I overlooking something? I am open to switching
> to b4, but I need a time slot for that.
Heh? I said your numbering is wrong. RFC was v1, this is v2.
Your broken numbering breaks tools. Try yourself:
b4 diff '<20251009181916.2431-2-wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>'
Works? Not. Should work? Obviously yes.
>
>>> * dropped "unevaluatedProperties" because we know this binding is not
>>> complete currently
>>
>> You cannot. Bindings must be complete (or complete "enough"), otherwise
>> I see no point in accepting them.
>
> I can see that.
>
>> It is like you sent driver code which does not build because you did not
>> write half of it. Why would we want it?
>
> I would agree if it does not build. But it does build. So, the proper
> comparison for me is a limited driver which probes and gives access to
> the device. Features can be implemented incrementally. This bindings
> works/builds with the few information we have. It even removes a
> warning.
>
> My reasoning is that DT describes HW. And on the Renesas Lager board,
> this PMIC *is* connected to the SPI controller. I am open to removing
> this node because we don't have a driver. That would mean, though,
> otherwise rare to find information is lost.
If you have it in DTS, then you need the binding. Just write it as much
as complete as possible, mention incompleteness in binding description
and provide reasons of incompleteness in commit msg.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: mfd: Add Renesas R2A11302FT PMIC
2025-10-10 8:04 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
@ 2025-10-10 8:19 ` Wolfram Sang
2025-10-10 8:22 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Wolfram Sang @ 2025-10-10 8:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski
Cc: linux-renesas-soc, Geert Uytterhoeven, Lee Jones, Rob Herring,
Krzysztof Kozlowski, Conor Dooley, Magnus Damm, devicetree
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1005 bytes --]
> > Adding this PMIC to trivial devices would be my fav solution, actually.
>
> I meant, that not being complete is not yet problem.
Ok, good.
> Heh? I said your numbering is wrong. RFC was v1, this is v2.
>
> Your broken numbering breaks tools. Try yourself:
>
> b4 diff '<20251009181916.2431-2-wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>'
I don't have b4, so I can't try. For 10+ years, I have been numbering
like this: RFC, RFC v2, ...
And once the patch leaves RFC status, switch to : PATCH, PATCH v2, ...
It still makes sense to me and noone complained so far IIRC. I can
switch to continous numbering if it makes other people happy.
> If you have it in DTS, then you need the binding. Just write it as much
> as complete as possible, mention incompleteness in binding description
> and provide reasons of incompleteness in commit msg.
Okay, that was my intention right away. So, I will do that, add
unevaluatedProperties and fix the spacing and we are good to go then?
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: mfd: Add Renesas R2A11302FT PMIC
2025-10-10 8:19 ` Wolfram Sang
@ 2025-10-10 8:22 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski @ 2025-10-10 8:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Wolfram Sang
Cc: linux-renesas-soc, Geert Uytterhoeven, Lee Jones, Rob Herring,
Krzysztof Kozlowski, Conor Dooley, Magnus Damm, devicetree
On 10/10/2025 10:19, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>
>>> Adding this PMIC to trivial devices would be my fav solution, actually.
>>
>> I meant, that not being complete is not yet problem.
>
> Ok, good.
>
>> Heh? I said your numbering is wrong. RFC was v1, this is v2.
>>
>> Your broken numbering breaks tools. Try yourself:
>>
>> b4 diff '<20251009181916.2431-2-wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>'
>
> I don't have b4, so I can't try. For 10+ years, I have been numbering
> like this: RFC, RFC v2, ...
>
> And once the patch leaves RFC status, switch to : PATCH, PATCH v2, ...
>
> It still makes sense to me and noone complained so far IIRC. I can
> switch to continous numbering if it makes other people happy.
If you carefully check responses from different people, you would see
complains about it. It's not logical, either. History of patch does not
disappear when transitioning from RFC to non-RFC. Previous reviews stay,
all previous comments are valid, all previous changelog is important so
is patch numbering. RFC is only indication you did not feel patch was ready.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2025-10-10 8:22 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2025-10-09 18:12 [PATCH] dt-bindings: mfd: Add Renesas R2A11302FT PMIC Wolfram Sang
2025-10-10 2:37 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2025-10-10 7:58 ` Wolfram Sang
2025-10-10 8:04 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2025-10-10 8:19 ` Wolfram Sang
2025-10-10 8:22 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).