On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 10:37:28 +0100
Maxime Ripard [off-list ref] wrote:

On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 01:19:15AM +0000, Andre Przywara wrote:

quoted

A new SoC, a new compatible string.
Also we were too miserly with just allowing seven interrupt banks.

Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>
---
 .../pinctrl/allwinner,sun4i-a10-pinctrl.yaml   | 18
++++++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git
a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/allwinner,sun4i-a10-pinctrl.yaml
b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/allwinner,sun4i-a10-pinctrl.yaml
index 5240487dfe50..292b05d9ed08 100644 ---
a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/allwinner,sun4i-a10-pinctrl.yaml
+++
b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/allwinner,sun4i-a10-pinctrl.yaml

@@ -53,6 +53,8 @@ properties:
       - allwinner,sun50i-h5-pinctrl
       - allwinner,sun50i-h6-pinctrl
       - allwinner,sun50i-h6-r-pinctrl
+      - allwinner,sun50i-h616-pinctrl
+      - allwinner,sun50i-h616-r-pinctrl
       - allwinner,suniv-f1c100s-pinctrl
       - nextthing,gr8-pinctrl
 

@@ -61,7 +63,7 @@ properties:
 
   interrupts:
     minItems: 1
-    maxItems: 7
+    maxItems: 8
     description:
       One interrupt per external interrupt bank supported on the
       controller, sorted by bank number ascending order.

@@ -91,7 +93,7 @@ properties:
       bank found in the controller
     $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32-array
     minItems: 1
-    maxItems: 5
+    maxItems: 8
 
 patternProperties:
   # It's pretty scary, but the basic idea is that:

@@ -145,6 +147,18 @@ allOf:
   # boards are defining it at the moment so it would generate a

lot of # warnings.
 
+  - if:
+      properties:
+        compatible:
+          enum:
+            - allwinner,sun50i-h616-pinctrl
+
+    then:
+      properties:
+        interrupts:
+          minItems: 8
+          maxItems: 8
+  

You don't need to have both if they are equals, and in this particular

Mmh, but all the other compatibles have both equal, so what would be
the recommended way to describe this? Just minItems? I don't find a
good explanation at the moment how to handle an explicit number, other
than by enumerating the items explicitly.

case we already check that the maximum is 8 so there's no need to
repeat that check here.

Are you referring to the overall "maxItems: 8" above, in the 2nd hunk?
While this will become redundant, this is apparently prone to changes
(as only "7" would be redundant at the moment), so I would rather not
rely on a global limit.

Cheers,
Andre.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel