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

[Ivan Vecera <ivecera@redhat.com>]

On 10. 04. 25 2:19 odp., Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 10/04/2025 12:28, Ivan Vecera wrote:
>>
>>>>> 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.
> 
> Hm? What/who gave such hint? Please read writing bindings or any other
> guide/speech about it. If that's a zl30735 then use "zl30735" as device
> part. If you have more devices, use fallbacks. See writing bindings.
> 
Something like this:

1)
properties:
   compatible:
     enum:
       - microchip,zl30731
       - microchip,zl30732
       - microchip,zl30732
       - microchip,zl80032
       - microchip,zl80732

or

2)
properties:
   compatible:
     items:
       - enum:
           - microchip,zl30731
           - microchip,zl30732
           - microchip,zl30732
           - microchip,zl80032
           - microchip,zl80732
       - const: microchip,azurite

If 1) what should be the filename ?

Thanks for patience.

Ivan

>>
>>>>
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +  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.
> 
> They do not have addressing, so no need for cells.

Thanks for explanation.

> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>