Re: [PATCH v4] dt-bindings: clock: via,vt8500: Convert to DT Schema

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>]

On 31/05/2026 18:49, Uday Kiran wrote:
>>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
>>> +%YAML 1.2
>>> +---
>>> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/clock/via,vt8500-clock.yaml#
>>> +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
>>> +
>>> +title: VIA/Wondermedia VT8500 Clock Controller
>>
>> How PMC is a clock controller? Really?
> 
> No Krzysztof, actually that was a wrong direction in v4.
> 
>>> +
>>> +maintainers:
>>> +  - Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>
>>> +  - Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
>>
>>
>> Subsystem maintainers do not care about PMC. This can be platform
>> maintainer.
> 
> I agree with you. I changed maintainers accordingly.
> 
>>> +
>>> +description:
>>> +  Clock controller bindings for VIA/Wondermedia VT8500 and Wondermedia WM8xxx
>>> +  series SoCs.
>>> +
>>> +select:
>>> +  properties:
>>> +    compatible:
>>> +      const: via,vt8500-pmc
>>> +
>>> +  required:
>>> +    - compatible
>>
>> Why do you have select?
>>
>> I don't understand your changes. This was not at v2 and I did not ask to
>> change that.
> 
> The select: block with via,vt8500-pmc and the clocks: type: object were
> mistakenly added to via,vt8500-clock.yaml in v4 — leftover confusion from
> trying to handle the PMC node's clock container in the same schema. In v5 these
> are removed from the clock schema entirely. The PMC binding is now a separate
> patch (via,vt8500-pmc.yaml) which is the right place for the clock container
> node description.
> 
>>> +
>>> +properties:
>>> +  compatible:
>>> +    const: via,vt8500-pmc
>>
>>
>> So via,vt8500-clock.yaml or pmc? Why aren't you removing the pmc file?
>> Why is this located at clocks?
> 
> In the next revision, this patch is scope only to the clock provider bindings
> (via,vt8500-device-clock, via,vt8500-pll-clock, wm,*-pll-clock). It no longer
> models PMC/top-level node properties and does not modify PMC binding files.
> 
>>> +
>>> +  reg:
>>> +    maxItems: 1
>>> +
>>> +  clocks:
>>> +    type: object
>>> +    additionalProperties: true
>>
>> No, this cannot be "true".
> 
> Agreed, I dropped that structure and kept strict schema validation.

So open v5 and tell me how did you solve "this cannot be 'true'", part?

Best regards,
Krzysztof