Re: [PATCH RFC v4 2/2] dt-bindings: leds: lp50xx: Document child reg, fix example

[Johan Adolfsson]

>From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Monday, May 26, 2025 17:34
>To: Johan Adolfsson; Lee Jones; Pavel Machek; Rob Herring; Krzysztof Kozlowski; Conor Dooley; Andrew Davis; Jacek Anaszewski
>Cc: linux-leds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Kernel
>Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v4 2/2] dt-bindings: leds: lp50xx: Document child reg, fix example
>
>On 26/05/2025 16:54, Johan Adolfsson wrote:
>> The led child reg node is the index within the bank, document that
>> and update the example accordingly.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Johan Adolfsson <johan.adolfsson@xxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>  .../devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-lp50xx.yaml         | 19 ++++++++++++-------
>>  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-lp50xx.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-lp50xx.yaml
>> index 402c25424525..a7b2d87cc39d 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-lp50xx.yaml
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-lp50xx.yaml
>> @@ -81,7 +81,12 @@ patternProperties:
>>
>>          properties:
>>            reg:
>> -            maxItems: 1
>> +            minimum: 0
>> +            maximum: 2
>"not compatible with minimum
>  and maximum."
>
>No, it is compatible. Just do:
>
>items:
 > - minimum: 0
  >  maximum: 2

I have tried every variant of that I can think of and can't make it pass the check:
DT_SCHEMA_FILES="Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-lp50xx.yaml" make dt_binding_check

Exactly how should it look like? 


>You call this patchset still an RFC, which usually means - do not
>review, not ready. Usually when I review RFC I received negative
>response that why do I review it... Therefore I tend to don't care about
>RFC. Some maintainers completely ignore RFC.
>
>Please EXPLICITLY document in cover letter why this is RFC and what you
>expect from us (IOW, why this is not ready for review).
>
>If dropping RFC, keep versioning (people also tend to do it wrong
>completely messing up the tools), although I see you use b4, so this
>should be without problem.
>
>Best regards,
>Krzysztof

Thank you for your patience!
I think its' ready for review now, If I can figure out the correct syntax for maxItems together with minimum and maximum
(if we need maxItems?) or would v4 be acceptable?

Best regards
/Johan