lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Apr]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: mtd: partitions: Add binding for Sercomm parser
    From
    On 09/04/2022 14:26, Mikhail Zhilkin wrote:
    >>
    >> In any case this requires vendor prefix.
    >
    > I'm not sure that "scpart-id" is necessary here. "sercomm,sc-partitions"
    > is necessary. I'm going to add vendor prefix in a separate patch. Is this
    > ok?

    Yes.

    >
    > ---
    >  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml | 2 ++
    >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
    >
    > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml
    > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml
    > index 01430973ecec..65ff22364fb3 100644
    > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml
    > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml
    > @@ -1082,6 +1082,8 @@ patternProperties:
    >      description: Sensirion AG
    >    "^sensortek,.*":
    >      description: Sensortek Technology Corporation
    > +  "^sercomm,.*":
    > +    description: Sercomm (Suzhou) Corporation
    >    "^sff,.*":
    >      description: Small Form Factor Committee
    >    "^sgd,.*":
    > --
    >
    >>> +
    >>> +required:
    >>> + - compatible
    >> Missing reg.
    >
    > reg isn't required. Parser can read partition offsets and sizes from
    > SC PART MAP table. Or do you mean something else?  All is ok
    > without reg definition in "Example" (except the warns that reg property
    > is missing).

    reg might not be required for current implementation but it is required
    by devicetree for every node with unit address. Do you expect here nodes
    without unit addresses?

    >> Are you sure that you tested your bindings? You miss here address/size
    >> cells and children, so you should have big fat warning.
    >>
    >> Plus your DTS example has error and does not compile...
    >
    > Whole dts, for the real device (not for example), was tested many times.

    Yeah, I did not speak about whole DTS, but bindings and example in the
    bindings.

    > Thank you for your feedback! I checked the another examples and there
    > are no any warnings now. But I'm not yet sure that "properties" and
    > "required" are correct.
    > What do you think (or what else I have to read / check)?

    There is no way you tested the bindings. There are for sure warnings
    because it simply cannot be even compiled. The writing-schema.rst
    describes how to test it.

    Best regards,
    Krzysztof

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2022-04-09 14:45    [W:3.496 / U:0.080 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site