With 'unevaluatedProperties' support implemented, there's a number of
warnings when running dtbs_check:
arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/r8a77951-ulcb-kf.dtb: spi@e6e90000: Unevaluated properties are not allowed ('power-domains', 'resets' were unexpected)
From schema: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/renesas,sh-msiof.yaml
The main problem is that SoC DTSI's include power-domains and resets
property, whereas the renesas,sh-msiof.yaml has 'unevaluatedProperties:
false'. So just add optional power-domains and resets properties.
Signed-off-by: Lad Prabhakar <[email protected]>
---
v1->v2
* Set maxItems to 1
v1: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/T/
---
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/renesas,sh-msiof.yaml | 6 ++++++
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/renesas,sh-msiof.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/renesas,sh-msiof.yaml
index 5de710adfa63..78c958b22f32 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/renesas,sh-msiof.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/renesas,sh-msiof.yaml
@@ -69,6 +69,12 @@ properties:
clocks:
maxItems: 1
+ power-domains:
+ maxItems: 1
+
+ resets:
+ maxItems: 1
+
num-cs:
description: |
Total number of chip selects (default is 1).
--
2.25.1
On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 12:03 AM Lad Prabhakar
<[email protected]> wrote:
> With 'unevaluatedProperties' support implemented, there's a number of
> warnings when running dtbs_check:
>
> arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/r8a77951-ulcb-kf.dtb: spi@e6e90000: Unevaluated properties are not allowed ('power-domains', 'resets' were unexpected)
> From schema: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/renesas,sh-msiof.yaml
>
> The main problem is that SoC DTSI's include power-domains and resets
> property, whereas the renesas,sh-msiof.yaml has 'unevaluatedProperties:
> false'. So just add optional power-domains and resets properties.
>
> Signed-off-by: Lad Prabhakar <[email protected]>
> ---
> v1->v2
> * Set maxItems to 1
Reviewed-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]>
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [email protected]
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
On 30/08/2022 01:03, Lad Prabhakar wrote:
> With 'unevaluatedProperties' support implemented, there's a number of
> warnings when running dtbs_check:
>
> arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/r8a77951-ulcb-kf.dtb: spi@e6e90000: Unevaluated properties are not allowed ('power-domains', 'resets' were unexpected)
> From schema: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/renesas,sh-msiof.yaml
>
> The main problem is that SoC DTSI's include power-domains and resets
> property, whereas the renesas,sh-msiof.yaml has 'unevaluatedProperties:
> false'. So just add optional power-domains and resets properties.
This is not the main problem. Main problem is that this device is in
power domain and/or uses resets, so the bindings are incomplete. Please
rephrase the commit msg.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
On Mon, 29 Aug 2022 23:03:34 +0100, Lad Prabhakar wrote:
> With 'unevaluatedProperties' support implemented, there's a number of
> warnings when running dtbs_check:
>
> arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/r8a77951-ulcb-kf.dtb: spi@e6e90000: Unevaluated properties are not allowed ('power-domains', 'resets' were unexpected)
> From schema: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/renesas,sh-msiof.yaml
>
> The main problem is that SoC DTSI's include power-domains and resets
> property, whereas the renesas,sh-msiof.yaml has 'unevaluatedProperties:
> false'. So just add optional power-domains and resets properties.
>
> [...]
Applied to
broonie/spi.git for-next
Thanks!
[1/1] dt-bindings: spi: renesas,sh-msiof: Fix 'unevaluatedProperties' warnings
commit: f4d381038700361f92d157288b0e18d87fab6c6d
All being well this means that it will be integrated into the linux-next
tree (usually sometime in the next 24 hours) and sent to Linus during
the next merge window (or sooner if it is a bug fix), however if
problems are discovered then the patch may be dropped or reverted.
You may get further e-mails resulting from automated or manual testing
and review of the tree, please engage with people reporting problems and
send followup patches addressing any issues that are reported if needed.
If any updates are required or you are submitting further changes they
should be sent as incremental updates against current git, existing
patches will not be replaced.
Please add any relevant lists and maintainers to the CCs when replying
to this mail.
Thanks,
Mark
On Mon, 29 Aug 2022 23:03:34 +0100, Lad Prabhakar wrote:
> With 'unevaluatedProperties' support implemented, there's a number of
> warnings when running dtbs_check:
>
> arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/r8a77951-ulcb-kf.dtb: spi@e6e90000: Unevaluated properties are not allowed ('power-domains', 'resets' were unexpected)
> From schema: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/renesas,sh-msiof.yaml
>
> The main problem is that SoC DTSI's include power-domains and resets
> property, whereas the renesas,sh-msiof.yaml has 'unevaluatedProperties:
> false'. So just add optional power-domains and resets properties.
>
> [...]
Applied to
broonie/spi.git for-next
Thanks!
[1/1] dt-bindings: spi: renesas,sh-msiof: Fix 'unevaluatedProperties' warnings
commit: f4d381038700361f92d157288b0e18d87fab6c6d
All being well this means that it will be integrated into the linux-next
tree (usually sometime in the next 24 hours) and sent to Linus during
the next merge window (or sooner if it is a bug fix), however if
problems are discovered then the patch may be dropped or reverted.
You may get further e-mails resulting from automated or manual testing
and review of the tree, please engage with people reporting problems and
send followup patches addressing any issues that are reported if needed.
If any updates are required or you are submitting further changes they
should be sent as incremental updates against current git, existing
patches will not be replaced.
Please add any relevant lists and maintainers to the CCs when replying
to this mail.
Thanks,
Mark