Re: [PATCH v5 5/5] dt-bindings: clocks: at91sam9x5-sckc: convert to yaml

On 17.05.2023 17:15, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe

On Wed, 17 May 2023 12:41:19 +0300, Claudiu Beznea wrote:

quoted

Convert Atmel slow clock controller documentation to yaml.

Signed-off-by: Claudiu Beznea <redacted>
Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <redacted>
---
 .../devicetree/bindings/clock/at91-clock.txt  | 30 --------
 .../bindings/clock/atmel,at91sam9x5-sckc.yaml | 70 +++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 70 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
 delete mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/at91-clock.txt
 create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/atmel,at91sam9x5-sckc.yaml

Running 'make dtbs_check' with the schema in this patch gives the
following warnings. Consider if they are expected or the schema is
incorrect. These may not be new warnings.

Note that it is not yet a requirement to have 0 warnings for dtbs_check.
This will change in the future.

Full log is available here: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1782586


sckc@fffffe50: '#clock-cells' is a required property
        arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9n12ek.dtb

sckc@fffffe50: 'clocks' is a required property
        arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9n12ek.dtb

sckc@fffffe50: 'slck', 'slow_osc', 'slow_rc_osc' do not match any of the regexes: 'pinctrl-[0-9]+'
        arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9n12ek.dtb

Is it possible that this has been checked on a wrong base? I'm asking this
because:
- patch 3/5 in this series uses proper bindings for slow clock controller
  on at91sam9n12.dtsi (which includes #clock-cells and clocks bindings and
  removes slck, slow_osc, slow_rc_osc)
- patch 4/5 in this series does s/sckc@/clock-controller@/ in all AT91
  device trees.

Moreover, I've re-checked all the individual dtsi files that describes a
slow clock controller and all descriptions has the "#clock-cells", "clocks"
property available and no slck, slow_osc, slow_rc_osc as childs of
sckc@fffffe50.

If not, could you please let me know your checker command?

Thank you,
Claudiu