Re: [PATCH v4 2/7] dt-bindings: net: snps,dwmac: Update the maxitems number of resets and reset-names

Krzysztof Kozlowski
2023-02-16T08:13:31Z

On 15/02/2023 08:46, yanhong wang wrote:
>
>
> On 2023/2/7 15:59, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 07/02/2023 03:43, yanhong wang wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2023/1/18 23:47, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 18/01/2023 07:16, Yanhong Wang wrote:
>>>>> Some boards(such as StarFive VisionFive v2) require more than one value
>>>>> which defined by resets property, so the original definition can not
>>>>> meet the requirements. In order to adapt to different requirements,
>>>>> adjust the maxitems number definition.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Yanhong Wang <yanhong.wang@starfivetech.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/snps,dwmac.yaml | 9 +++------
>>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/snps,dwmac.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/snps,dwmac.yaml
>>>>> index e26c3e76ebb7..baf2c5b9e92d 100644
>>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/snps,dwmac.yaml
>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/snps,dwmac.yaml
>>>>> @@ -133,12 +133,9 @@ properties:
>>>>> - ptp_ref
>>>>>
>>>>> resets:
>>>>> - maxItems: 1
>>>>
>>>> Also, this does not make sense on its own and messes constraints for all
>>>> other users. So another no for entire patch.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks. Change the properties of 'resets' and reset-names like this:
>>>
>>> resets:
>>> minItems: 1
>>> maxItems: 2
>>>
>>> reset-names:
>>> minItems: 1
>>> maxItems: 2
>>>
>>> Is it right? Do you have any other better suggestions?
>>
>> Isn't this allowing two reset items for every variant of snps,dwmac?
>>
>
> Sorry for not getting back to you faster.
> After referring to the above modification, i used the command 'make DT_CHECKER_FLAGS=-m dt_binding_check'
> to check all the bindings(including 'starfive,jh7110-dwmac.yaml'), no errors are reported,
> and the errors reported by Rob Herring are gone.

I don't see how does it answer my question. I claim you loosen the
constraints and allow now two resets for everyone. You say you don't see
errors. I never claimed there will be errors. I claimed what I said -
you allow now to reset everywhere, which might not be correct
description of every hardware.

Best regards,
Krzysztof