On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 09:15:17AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

On 27/08/2023 23:01, Serge Semin wrote:

quoted

Hi Krzysztof

On Sun, Aug 27, 2023 at 09:56:06AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

quoted

On 26/08/2023 23:04, Serge Semin wrote:

quoted

quoted

+  clock-names:
+    items:
+      - const: stmmaceth

  clock-names:
    const: stmmaceth
?

quoted

The existing syntax is correct. This is a string array.

Could you please clarify whether it's a requirement (always specify
items: property for an array) or just an acceptable option (another
one is suggested in my comment)? I am asking because:
1. In this case the "clock-names" array is supposed to have only one
item. Directly setting "const: stmmaceth" with no items: property
shall simplify it.
2. There are single-entry "clock-names" property in the DT-bindings
defined as I suggested.
3. There is a "compatible" property which is also a string array but
it can be defined as I suggested (omitting the items property).

so based on all of that using the "items:"-based constraint here seems
redundant. Am I wrong to think like that? If so in what aspect?

Syntax is correct in both cases. However the single list compatible
*cannot grow*, while single list clock might, when developer notices
that the binding was incomplete. People add binding matching drivers,
not the hardware, thus having incomplete list of clocks is happening all
the time.

So it's just a matter of maintainability. Got it. Thanks.

-Serge(y)

Best regards,
Krzysztof