On 23/01/2024 11:40, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:

Il 23/01/24 09:57, Krzysztof Kozlowski ha scritto:

quoted

On 22/01/2024 18:40, Rafał Miłecki wrote:

quoted

On 22.01.2024 14:19, Matthias Brugger wrote:

quoted

On 22/01/2024 13:49, Rafał Miłecki wrote:

quoted

From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>

This helps validating DTS files. Introduced changes:
1. Reworded title
2. Dropper redundant properties descriptions
3. Added required #include and adjusted "reg" in example

Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
---
   .../bindings/rtc/mediatek,mt2712-rtc.yaml     | 39 +++++++++++++++++++
   .../devicetree/bindings/rtc/rtc-mt2712.txt    | 14 -------
   2 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
   create mode 100644 
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/mediatek,mt2712-rtc.yaml
   delete mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/rtc-mt2712.txt

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/mediatek,mt2712-rtc.yaml 

b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/mediatek,mt2712-rtc.yaml

In this schema can easily fit "mediatek,mt7622-rtc", so how about renaming 
it and add reference for that RTC as well?

I see your point but by looking at existing Linux drivers:
drivers/rtc/rtc-mt2712.c
drivers/rtc/rtc-mt7622.c
it seems like quite different hardware blocks.

Different registers, different programming, clk in MT7622.

Should they really share a YAML binding just because they use similar
properties?

Hardware aspect matters more, including features not yet present in the
binding, like some power on/off control. Different clock inputs is also
an argument.

I agree - those IPs are different, we should have two bindings for the two
(very) different IP versions.

Makes sense. Then for this patch:
Reviewed-by: Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>

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