On 1/12/26 5:48 PM, Ivan Vecera wrote:

On 1/12/26 5:14 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

quoted

On 09/01/2026 15:11, Ivan Vecera wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

+  Common properties for devices that require connection to DPLL
(Digital Phase
+  Locked Loop) pins for frequency synchronization (e.g. SyncE).
+
+properties:
+  dpll-pins:
+    $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/phandle-array
+    description:
+      List of phandles to the DPLL pin nodes connected to this 
device.
+
+  dpll-pin-names:
+    $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/string-array
+    description:
+      Names for the DPLL pins defined in 'dpll-pins', in the same
order.
+
+dependencies:
+  dpll-pin-names: [ dpll-pins ]

Binding should go to dtschema. See also commit
3282a891060aace02e3eed4789739768060cea32 in dtschema or other examples
how to add new provider/consumer properties.

Quick questions... if the dpll pin consumer properties schema should go
to dtschema...

1) Should I remove this patch from this series? So this schema won't be
     a part of kernel

Yes.

OK, will remove this patch from the series and create PR against
dtschema and ...

quoted

quoted

2) dtschema does not contain dpll-device and dpll-pin schemas now, I

The provider, so the #foo-cells should be in dtschema as well.

... include dpll.yaml and dpll-pin.yaml as well.

Well, after dtschema investigation, I should make a PR with
dpll-pin-consumer.yaml and dpll-pin-producer.yaml.

Correct?

Thanks,
Ivan