Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] dt-bindings: net: ti: k3-am654-cpsw-nuss: Update bindings for J7200 CPSW5G

Siddharth Vadapalli
2022-08-17T05:15:39Z

Hello Krzysztof,

On 16/08/22 13:14, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 16/08/2022 09:01, Siddharth Vadapalli wrote:
>> Update bindings for TI K3 J7200 SoC which contains 5 ports (4 external
>> ports) CPSW5G module and add compatible for it.
>>
>> Changes made:
>> - Add new compatible ti,j7200-cpswxg-nuss for CPSW5G.
>> - Extend pattern properties for new compatible.
>> - Change maximum number of CPSW ports to 4 for new compatible.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Siddharth Vadapalli <s-vadapalli@ti.com>
>> ---
>> .../bindings/net/ti,k3-am654-cpsw-nuss.yaml | 17 +++++++++++++++--
>> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/ti,k3-am654-cpsw-nuss.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/ti,k3-am654-cpsw-nuss.yaml
>> index b8281d8be940..5366a367c387 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/ti,k3-am654-cpsw-nuss.yaml
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/ti,k3-am654-cpsw-nuss.yaml
>> @@ -57,6 +57,7 @@ properties:
>> - ti,am654-cpsw-nuss
>> - ti,j721e-cpsw-nuss
>> - ti,am642-cpsw-nuss
>> + - ti,j7200-cpswxg-nuss
>
> Keep some order in the list, so maybe before j721e.

Thank you for reviewing the patch. I will move ti,j7200-cpswxg-nuss
above ti,j721e-cpsw-nuss in the v5 series.

>
>>
>> reg:
>> maxItems: 1
>> @@ -110,7 +111,7 @@ properties:
>> const: 0
>>
>> patternProperties:
>> - port@[1-2]:
>> + "^port@[1-4]$":
>> type: object
>> description: CPSWxG NUSS external ports
>>
>> @@ -119,7 +120,7 @@ properties:
>> properties:
>> reg:
>> minimum: 1
>> - maximum: 2
>> + maximum: 4
>> description: CPSW port number
>>
>> phys:
>> @@ -151,6 +152,18 @@ properties:
>>
>> additionalProperties: false
>>
>> +if:
>
> This goes under allOf just before unevaluated/additionalProperties:false

allOf was added by me in v3 series patch and it is not present in the
file. I removed it in v4 after Rob Herring's suggestion. Please let me
know if simply moving the if-then statements to the line above
additionalProperties:false would be fine.

Regards,
Siddharth.