Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next 01/12] dt-bindings: dpll: add common dpll-pin-consumer schema

[Ivan Vecera <ivecera@redhat.com>]

On 1/12/26 5:48 PM, Ivan Vecera wrote:
> 
> 
> On 1/12/26 5:14 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 09/01/2026 15:11, Ivan Vecera wrote:
>>>>>> +  Common properties for devices that require connection to DPLL
>>>>>> (Digital Phase
>>>>>> +  Locked Loop) pins for frequency synchronization (e.g. SyncE).
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +properties:
>>>>>> +  dpll-pins:
>>>>>> +    $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/phandle-array
>>>>>> +    description:
>>>>>> +      List of phandles to the DPLL pin nodes connected to this 
>>>>>> device.
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +  dpll-pin-names:
>>>>>> +    $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/string-array
>>>>>> +    description:
>>>>>> +      Names for the DPLL pins defined in 'dpll-pins', in the same
>>>>>> order.
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +dependencies:
>>>>>> +  dpll-pin-names: [ dpll-pins ]
>>>>>
>>>>> Binding should go to dtschema. See also commit
>>>>> 3282a891060aace02e3eed4789739768060cea32 in dtschema or other examples
>>>>> how to add new provider/consumer properties.
>>>
>>> Quick questions... if the dpll pin consumer properties schema should go
>>> to dtschema...
>>>
>>> 1) Should I remove this patch from this series? So this schema won't be
>>>      a part of kernel
>>
>> Yes.
> 
> OK, will remove this patch from the series and create PR against
> dtschema and ...
> 
>>> 2) dtschema does not contain dpll-device and dpll-pin schemas now, I
>>
>> The provider, so the #foo-cells should be in dtschema as well.
> 
> ... include dpll.yaml and dpll-pin.yaml as well.

Well, after dtschema investigation, I should make a PR with
dpll-pin-consumer.yaml and dpll-pin-producer.yaml.

Correct?

Thanks,
Ivan