On 19/08/2022 11:37, Sergiu.Moga@microchip.com wrote:

quoted

quoted

+      - items:
+          - const: atmel,at91rm9200-dbgu
+          - const: atmel,at91rm9200-usart
+      - items:
+          - const: atmel,at91sam9260-dbgu
+          - const: atmel,at91sam9260-usart
+      - items:
+          - const: microchip,sam9x60-dbgu
+          - const: microchip,sam9x60-usart
+      - items:
+          - const: microchip,sam9x60-usart
+          - const: atmel,at91sam9260-usart

This is not correct - contradicts earlier one.

Yes, this was for a DT node we have internally, my bad. You are right, 
it does not really make sense and it should not be the other way around: 
having the DT validate the binding. I will remove this combination in 
the next version.

You need to fix any out of tree DTS or upstream it.

quoted

quoted

+      - items:
+          - const: microchip,sam9x60-dbgu
+          - const: microchip,sam9x60-usart
+          - const: atmel,at91sam9260-dbgu
+          - const: atmel,at91sam9260-usart

What? You wrote above that microchip,sam9x60-dbgu is compatible only
with microchip,sam9x60-usart. Now you write it is also compatible with
other ones?

Yes, this one is intended because the 9x60 IP has new functionalities on 
top of 9260, and some nodes do keep all four as fallback.

Then all nodes should keep fallbacks.

quoted

quoted

+
+  reg:
+    maxItems: 1
+
+  interrupts:
+    maxItems: 1
+
+  clock-names:
+    contains:
+      const: usart

No, this has to be specific/fixed list.

I wanted to highlight the fact that it must contain either:
clock-names = "usart";
or
clock-names = "usart", "gclk";

What would be the recommended way of doing this then?

We have an example for this.

https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.19/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/example-schema.yaml#L91


Best regards,
Krzysztof

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