Hello Conor,

On Fri Feb 23, 2024 at 7:12 PM CET, Conor Dooley wrote:

On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 05:05:25PM +0100, Théo Lebrun wrote:

quoted

Compatible can be A or B, not A or B or A+B. Remove last option.
A=ti,j721e-usb and B=ti,am64-usb.

Signed-off-by: Théo Lebrun <theo.lebrun@bootlin.com>
---
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/ti,j721e-usb.yaml | 9 +++------
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/ti,j721e-usb.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/ti,j721e-usb.yaml
index 95ff9791baea..949f45eb45c2 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/ti,j721e-usb.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/ti,j721e-usb.yaml

@@ -11,12 +11,9 @@ maintainers:
 
 properties:
   compatible:
-    oneOf:
-      - const: ti,j721e-usb
-      - const: ti,am64-usb
-      - items:
-          - const: ti,j721e-usb
-          - const: ti,am64-usb

Correct, this makes no sense. The devices seem to be compatible though,
so I would expect this to actually be:
oneOf:
  - const: ti,j721e-usb
  - items:
      - const: ti,am64-usb
      - const: ti,j721e-usb

I need your help to grasp what that change is supposed to express? Would
you mind turning it into english sentences?

A=ti,j721e-usb and B=ti,am64-usb. My understanding of your proposal is
that a device can either be compat with A or B. But B is compatible
with A so you express it as a list of items. If B is compat with A then
A is compat with B. Does the order of items matter?

I've not applied your proposal to check for dtbs_check but I'd guess it
would throw warnings for the single existing upstream DTSI (as of
v6.8-rc6) that uses "ti,am64-usb"? See:
arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am64-main.dtsi.

Thanks Conor!

--
Théo Lebrun, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com

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