Re: [PATCH 1/5] dt-bindings: clock: fix wrong clock documentation for qcom,rpmcc

[Christian Marangi]

On Wed, Jul 06, 2022 at 11:23:46AM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Jul 2022 at 23:56, Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > qcom,rpmcc describe 2 different kind of device.
> > Currently we have definition for rpm-smd based device but we lack
> > Documentation for simple rpm based device.
> >
> > Add the missing clk for ipq806x, apq8060, msm8660 and apq8064 and
> > provide and additional example.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  .../devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,rpmcc.yaml | 77 ++++++++++++++++++-
> >  1 file changed, 73 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,rpmcc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,rpmcc.yaml
> > index 9d296b89a8d0..028eb0277495 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,rpmcc.yaml
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,rpmcc.yaml
> [,,,,]
> 
> > +
> > +then:
> > +  properties:
> > +    clocks:
> > +      description: pxo clock
> > +
> > +    clock-names:
> > +      const: pxo
> > +
> > +  required:
> > +    - clocks
> > +    - clock-names
> 
> I don't think you can not mark these properties as required, older
> schemas do not have them.
>

Well considering we changed rpmcc to parent_data and rpm clock require
pxo clock as parents it seems to be they should be required.

Actually no idea why this wasn't required before. Probably because this
schema described only rpm-smd and not old rpm?

> > +
> > +else:
> > +  if:
> > +    properties:
> > +      compatible:
> > +        contains:
> > +          const: qcom,rpmcc-apq8064
> > +  then:
> > +    properties:
> > +      clocks:
> > +        items:
> > +          - description: pxo clock
> > +          - description: cxo clock
> [...]
> 
> -- 
> With best wishes
> Dmitry

-- 
	Ansuel