On Sat, Jan 11, 2025 at 07:26:08PM +0800, Andy Yan wrote:

That's wrong, why maxItems became minItems? How is this related to rk3576?

+
         clock-names:
-          minItems: 7
+          minItems: 5

You are doing here way too much. You need to split reorganizing, so we
will see what comes new.

And of course you need to explain why you are changing EXISTING binding
(I am not talking about shuffling around - you change the binding).

+
+        interrupts:
+          maxItems: 1
+
+        interrupt-names: false
 
         ports:
           required:
             - port@0
             - port@1
             - port@2
-            - port@3
+
+        rockchip,vo1-grf: false
+        rockchip,vop-grf: false
+        rockchip,pmu: false
 
       required:
         - rockchip,grf
-        - rockchip,vo1-grf
-        - rockchip,vop-grf
-        - rockchip,pmu
 
-    else:
+  - if:
+      properties:
+        compatible:
+          contains:
+            enum:
+              - rockchip,rk3576-vop
+    then:
       properties:
+        clocks:
+          minItems: 5

Why minItems? Nothing in this patch makes sense for me. Neither changing
existing binding nor new binding for rk3576.

+
+        clock-names:
+          minItems: 5
+
+        interrupts:
+          minItems: 4
+
+        interrupt-names:
+          minItems: 4
+
+        ports:
+          required:
+            - port@0
+            - port@1
+            - port@2
+
         rockchip,vo1-grf: false
         rockchip,vop-grf: false
-        rockchip,pmu: false
 
+      required:
+        - rockchip,grf
+        - rockchip,pmu
+
+  - if:
+      properties:
+        compatible:
+          contains:
+            const: rockchip,rk3588-vop
+    then:
+      properties:
         clocks:
-          maxItems: 5
+          minItems: 7

And again weird change to the binding.

Best regards,
Krzysztof