Update the pca954x bindings to add support for the Maxim MAX735x/MAX736x
chips. The functionality will be provided by the exisintg pca954x driver.
While on it make the interrupts support conditionally as not all of the
existing chips have interrupts.
For chips that are powered off by default add an optional regulator
called vdd-supply.
Signed-off-by: Patrick Rudolph <[email protected]>
---
.../bindings/i2c/i2c-mux-pca954x.yaml | 39 ++++++++++++++++---
1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-mux-pca954x.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-mux-pca954x.yaml
index 9f1726d0356b..efad0a95806f 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-mux-pca954x.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-mux-pca954x.yaml
@@ -4,21 +4,25 @@
$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/i2c/i2c-mux-pca954x.yaml#
$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
-title: NXP PCA954x I2C bus switch
+title: NXP PCA954x I2C and compatible bus switches
maintainers:
- Laurent Pinchart <[email protected]>
description:
- The binding supports NXP PCA954x and PCA984x I2C mux/switch devices.
-
-allOf:
- - $ref: /schemas/i2c/i2c-mux.yaml#
+ The binding supports NXP PCA954x and PCA984x I2C mux/switch devices,
+ and the Maxim MAX735x and MAX736x I2C mux/switch devices.
properties:
compatible:
oneOf:
- enum:
+ - maxim,max7356
+ - maxim,max7357
+ - maxim,max7358
+ - maxim,max7367
+ - maxim,max7368
+ - maxim,max7369
- nxp,pca9540
- nxp,pca9542
- nxp,pca9543
@@ -59,10 +63,33 @@ properties:
description: if present, overrides i2c-mux-idle-disconnect
$ref: /schemas/mux/mux-controller.yaml#/properties/idle-state
+ vdd-supply:
+ description: A voltage regulator supplying power to the chip.
+
required:
- compatible
- reg
+allOf:
+ - $ref: /schemas/i2c/i2c-mux.yaml#
+ - if:
+ not:
+ properties:
+ compatible:
+ contains:
+ enum:
+ - maxim,max7367
+ - maxim,max7369
+ - nxp,pca9542
+ - nxp,pca9543
+ - nxp,pca9544
+ - nxp,pca9545
+ then:
+ properties:
+ interrupts: false
+ "#interrupt-cells": false
+ interrupt-controller: false
+
unevaluatedProperties: false
examples:
@@ -79,6 +106,8 @@ examples:
#size-cells = <0>;
reg = <0x74>;
+ vdd-supply = <&p3v3>;
+
interrupt-parent = <&ipic>;
interrupts = <17 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW>;
interrupt-controller;
--
2.37.3
On Fri, Oct 07, 2022 at 09:53:50AM +0200, Patrick Rudolph wrote:
> Update the pca954x bindings to add support for the Maxim MAX735x/MAX736x
> chips. The functionality will be provided by the exisintg pca954x driver.
>
> While on it make the interrupts support conditionally as not all of the
> existing chips have interrupts.
>
> For chips that are powered off by default add an optional regulator
> called vdd-supply.
>
> Signed-off-by: Patrick Rudolph <[email protected]>
> ---
> .../bindings/i2c/i2c-mux-pca954x.yaml | 39 ++++++++++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-mux-pca954x.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-mux-pca954x.yaml
> index 9f1726d0356b..efad0a95806f 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-mux-pca954x.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-mux-pca954x.yaml
> @@ -4,21 +4,25 @@
> $id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/i2c/i2c-mux-pca954x.yaml#
> $schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
>
> -title: NXP PCA954x I2C bus switch
> +title: NXP PCA954x I2C and compatible bus switches
>
> maintainers:
> - Laurent Pinchart <[email protected]>
>
> description:
> - The binding supports NXP PCA954x and PCA984x I2C mux/switch devices.
> -
> -allOf:
> - - $ref: /schemas/i2c/i2c-mux.yaml#
Why do you move the allOf statement to the bottom of the schema?
> + The binding supports NXP PCA954x and PCA984x I2C mux/switch devices,
> + and the Maxim MAX735x and MAX736x I2C mux/switch devices.
What about combining the sentence: "The binding supports NXP
PCA954x/PCA984x and Maxim MAX735x/MAX736x I2C mux/switch devices." ?
Currently it does look a bit bulky.
>
> properties:
> compatible:
> oneOf:
> - enum:
> + - maxim,max7356
> + - maxim,max7357
> + - maxim,max7358
> + - maxim,max7367
> + - maxim,max7368
> + - maxim,max7369
> - nxp,pca9540
> - nxp,pca9542
> - nxp,pca9543
> @@ -59,10 +63,33 @@ properties:
> description: if present, overrides i2c-mux-idle-disconnect
> $ref: /schemas/mux/mux-controller.yaml#/properties/idle-state
>
> + vdd-supply:
> + description: A voltage regulator supplying power to the chip.
> +
> required:
> - compatible
> - reg
>
> +allOf:
> + - $ref: /schemas/i2c/i2c-mux.yaml#
> + - if:
> + not:
> + properties:
> + compatible:
> + contains:
> + enum:
> + - maxim,max7367
> + - maxim,max7369
> + - nxp,pca9542
> + - nxp,pca9543
> + - nxp,pca9544
> + - nxp,pca9545
> + then:
> + properties:
> + interrupts: false
> + "#interrupt-cells": false
> + interrupt-controller: false
I'd suggest to add an opposite definition. Evaluate the properties for
the devices which expect them being evaluated instead of falsing their
existence for the devices which don't support the interrupts.
-Sergey
> +
> unevaluatedProperties: false
>
> examples:
> @@ -79,6 +106,8 @@ examples:
> #size-cells = <0>;
> reg = <0x74>;
>
> + vdd-supply = <&p3v3>;
> +
> interrupt-parent = <&ipic>;
> interrupts = <17 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW>;
> interrupt-controller;
> --
> 2.37.3
>
On 08/10/2022 13:50, Serge Semin wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 07, 2022 at 09:53:50AM +0200, Patrick Rudolph wrote:
>> Update the pca954x bindings to add support for the Maxim MAX735x/MAX736x
>> chips. The functionality will be provided by the exisintg pca954x driver.
>>
>> While on it make the interrupts support conditionally as not all of the
>> existing chips have interrupts.
>>
>> For chips that are powered off by default add an optional regulator
>> called vdd-supply.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Patrick Rudolph <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> .../bindings/i2c/i2c-mux-pca954x.yaml | 39 ++++++++++++++++---
>> 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-mux-pca954x.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-mux-pca954x.yaml
>> index 9f1726d0356b..efad0a95806f 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-mux-pca954x.yaml
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-mux-pca954x.yaml
>> @@ -4,21 +4,25 @@
>> $id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/i2c/i2c-mux-pca954x.yaml#
>> $schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
>>
>> -title: NXP PCA954x I2C bus switch
>> +title: NXP PCA954x I2C and compatible bus switches
>>
>> maintainers:
>> - Laurent Pinchart <[email protected]>
>>
>> description:
>> - The binding supports NXP PCA954x and PCA984x I2C mux/switch devices.
>> -
>
>> -allOf:
>> - - $ref: /schemas/i2c/i2c-mux.yaml#
>
> Why do you move the allOf statement to the bottom of the schema?
Because it goes with 'ifs' at the bottom of the schema...
>
>> + The binding supports NXP PCA954x and PCA984x I2C mux/switch devices,
>> + and the Maxim MAX735x and MAX736x I2C mux/switch devices.
>
> What about combining the sentence: "The binding supports NXP
> PCA954x/PCA984x and Maxim MAX735x/MAX736x I2C mux/switch devices." ?
> Currently it does look a bit bulky.
Drop "The binding supports". Instead describe the hardware.
>
>>
>> properties:
>> compatible:
>> oneOf:
>> - enum:
>> + - maxim,max7356
>> + - maxim,max7357
>> + - maxim,max7358
>> + - maxim,max7367
>> + - maxim,max7368
>> + - maxim,max7369
>> - nxp,pca9540
>> - nxp,pca9542
>> - nxp,pca9543
>> @@ -59,10 +63,33 @@ properties:
>> description: if present, overrides i2c-mux-idle-disconnect
>> $ref: /schemas/mux/mux-controller.yaml#/properties/idle-state
>>
>> + vdd-supply:
>> + description: A voltage regulator supplying power to the chip.
>> +
>> required:
>> - compatible
>> - reg
>>
>> +allOf:
>> + - $ref: /schemas/i2c/i2c-mux.yaml#
>> + - if:
>> + not:
>> + properties:
>> + compatible:
>> + contains:
>> + enum:
>> + - maxim,max7367
>> + - maxim,max7369
>> + - nxp,pca9542
>> + - nxp,pca9543
>> + - nxp,pca9544
>> + - nxp,pca9545
>> + then:
>
>> + properties:
>> + interrupts: false
>> + "#interrupt-cells": false
>> + interrupt-controller: false
>
> I'd suggest to add an opposite definition. Evaluate the properties for
> the devices which expect them being evaluated instead of falsing their
> existence for the devices which don't support the interrupts.
The properties rather should be defined in top-level than in "if", so I
am not sure how would you want to achieve opposite way.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
On Sun, Oct 09, 2022 at 05:25:22PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 08/10/2022 13:50, Serge Semin wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 07, 2022 at 09:53:50AM +0200, Patrick Rudolph wrote:
> >> Update the pca954x bindings to add support for the Maxim MAX735x/MAX736x
> >> chips. The functionality will be provided by the exisintg pca954x driver.
> >>
> >> While on it make the interrupts support conditionally as not all of the
> >> existing chips have interrupts.
> >>
> >> For chips that are powered off by default add an optional regulator
> >> called vdd-supply.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Patrick Rudolph <[email protected]>
> >> ---
> >> .../bindings/i2c/i2c-mux-pca954x.yaml | 39 ++++++++++++++++---
> >> 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-mux-pca954x.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-mux-pca954x.yaml
> >> index 9f1726d0356b..efad0a95806f 100644
> >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-mux-pca954x.yaml
> >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-mux-pca954x.yaml
> >> @@ -4,21 +4,25 @@
> >> $id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/i2c/i2c-mux-pca954x.yaml#
> >> $schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
> >>
> >> -title: NXP PCA954x I2C bus switch
> >> +title: NXP PCA954x I2C and compatible bus switches
> >>
> >> maintainers:
> >> - Laurent Pinchart <[email protected]>
> >>
> >> description:
> >> - The binding supports NXP PCA954x and PCA984x I2C mux/switch devices.
> >> -
> >
> >> -allOf:
> >> - - $ref: /schemas/i2c/i2c-mux.yaml#
> >
> > Why do you move the allOf statement to the bottom of the schema?
>
> Because it goes with 'ifs' at the bottom of the schema...
Is there a requirement to move the allOf array to the bottom of the
schema if it contains the 'if' statement? If only there were some
kernel doc with all such implicit conventions...
>
> >
> >> + The binding supports NXP PCA954x and PCA984x I2C mux/switch devices,
> >> + and the Maxim MAX735x and MAX736x I2C mux/switch devices.
> >
> > What about combining the sentence: "The binding supports NXP
> > PCA954x/PCA984x and Maxim MAX735x/MAX736x I2C mux/switch devices." ?
> > Currently it does look a bit bulky.
>
> Drop "The binding supports". Instead describe the hardware.
>
> >
> >>
> >> properties:
> >> compatible:
> >> oneOf:
> >> - enum:
> >> + - maxim,max7356
> >> + - maxim,max7357
> >> + - maxim,max7358
> >> + - maxim,max7367
> >> + - maxim,max7368
> >> + - maxim,max7369
> >> - nxp,pca9540
> >> - nxp,pca9542
> >> - nxp,pca9543
> >> @@ -59,10 +63,33 @@ properties:
> >> description: if present, overrides i2c-mux-idle-disconnect
> >> $ref: /schemas/mux/mux-controller.yaml#/properties/idle-state
> >>
> >> + vdd-supply:
> >> + description: A voltage regulator supplying power to the chip.
> >> +
> >> required:
> >> - compatible
> >> - reg
> >>
> >> +allOf:
> >> + - $ref: /schemas/i2c/i2c-mux.yaml#
> >> + - if:
> >> + not:
> >> + properties:
> >> + compatible:
> >> + contains:
> >> + enum:
> >> + - maxim,max7367
> >> + - maxim,max7369
> >> + - nxp,pca9542
> >> + - nxp,pca9543
> >> + - nxp,pca9544
> >> + - nxp,pca9545
> >> + then:
> >
> >> + properties:
> >> + interrupts: false
> >> + "#interrupt-cells": false
> >> + interrupt-controller: false
> >
> > I'd suggest to add an opposite definition. Evaluate the properties for
> > the devices which expect them being evaluated instead of falsing their
> > existence for the devices which don't support the interrupts.
>
> The properties rather should be defined in top-level than in "if", so I
> am not sure how would you want to achieve opposite way.
With one more implicit convention like "preferably define the
properties in the top-level than in if" of course I can't. Otherwise I
thought something like this would work:
+allOf:
+ - ...
+ - if:
+ properties:
+ compatible:
+ contains:
+ enum: [...]
+ then:
+ properties:
+ interrupts: ...
+ "#interrupt-cells": ...
+ interrupt-controller: ...
...
- interrupts:
- "#interrupt-cells":
- interrupt-controller: ...
With unevaluatedProperties set to false and evaluation performed for
the particular compatibles such schema shall work with the same
semantic.
-Sergey
>
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>
On 09/10/2022 14:03, Serge Semin wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 09, 2022 at 05:25:22PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 08/10/2022 13:50, Serge Semin wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 07, 2022 at 09:53:50AM +0200, Patrick Rudolph wrote:
>>>> Update the pca954x bindings to add support for the Maxim MAX735x/MAX736x
>>>> chips. The functionality will be provided by the exisintg pca954x driver.
>>>>
>>>> While on it make the interrupts support conditionally as not all of the
>>>> existing chips have interrupts.
>>>>
>>>> For chips that are powered off by default add an optional regulator
>>>> called vdd-supply.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Patrick Rudolph <[email protected]>
>>>> ---
>>>> .../bindings/i2c/i2c-mux-pca954x.yaml | 39 ++++++++++++++++---
>>>> 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-mux-pca954x.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-mux-pca954x.yaml
>>>> index 9f1726d0356b..efad0a95806f 100644
>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-mux-pca954x.yaml
>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-mux-pca954x.yaml
>>>> @@ -4,21 +4,25 @@
>>>> $id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/i2c/i2c-mux-pca954x.yaml#
>>>> $schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
>>>>
>>>> -title: NXP PCA954x I2C bus switch
>>>> +title: NXP PCA954x I2C and compatible bus switches
>>>>
>>>> maintainers:
>>>> - Laurent Pinchart <[email protected]>
>>>>
>>>> description:
>>>> - The binding supports NXP PCA954x and PCA984x I2C mux/switch devices.
>>>> -
>>>
>>>> -allOf:
>>>> - - $ref: /schemas/i2c/i2c-mux.yaml#
>>>
>>> Why do you move the allOf statement to the bottom of the schema?
>>
>
>> Because it goes with 'ifs' at the bottom of the schema...
>
> Is there a requirement to move the allOf array to the bottom of the
> schema if it contains the 'if' statement? If only there were some
> kernel doc with all such implicit conventions...
It's just a convention, although quite logical because "ifs" can grow
significantly, so putting it before properties is outside of context.
Reader does not know yet to what this if applies.
>
>>
>>>
>>>> + The binding supports NXP PCA954x and PCA984x I2C mux/switch devices,
>>>> + and the Maxim MAX735x and MAX736x I2C mux/switch devices.
>>>
>>> What about combining the sentence: "The binding supports NXP
>>> PCA954x/PCA984x and Maxim MAX735x/MAX736x I2C mux/switch devices." ?
>>> Currently it does look a bit bulky.
>>
>> Drop "The binding supports". Instead describe the hardware.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> properties:
>>>> compatible:
>>>> oneOf:
>>>> - enum:
>>>> + - maxim,max7356
>>>> + - maxim,max7357
>>>> + - maxim,max7358
>>>> + - maxim,max7367
>>>> + - maxim,max7368
>>>> + - maxim,max7369
>>>> - nxp,pca9540
>>>> - nxp,pca9542
>>>> - nxp,pca9543
>>>> @@ -59,10 +63,33 @@ properties:
>>>> description: if present, overrides i2c-mux-idle-disconnect
>>>> $ref: /schemas/mux/mux-controller.yaml#/properties/idle-state
>>>>
>>>> + vdd-supply:
>>>> + description: A voltage regulator supplying power to the chip.
>>>> +
>>>> required:
>>>> - compatible
>>>> - reg
>>>>
>>>> +allOf:
>>>> + - $ref: /schemas/i2c/i2c-mux.yaml#
>>>> + - if:
>>>> + not:
>>>> + properties:
>>>> + compatible:
>>>> + contains:
>>>> + enum:
>>>> + - maxim,max7367
>>>> + - maxim,max7369
>>>> + - nxp,pca9542
>>>> + - nxp,pca9543
>>>> + - nxp,pca9544
>>>> + - nxp,pca9545
>>>> + then:
>>>
>>>> + properties:
>>>> + interrupts: false
>>>> + "#interrupt-cells": false
>>>> + interrupt-controller: false
>>>
>>> I'd suggest to add an opposite definition. Evaluate the properties for
>>> the devices which expect them being evaluated instead of falsing their
>>> existence for the devices which don't support the interrupts.
>>
>
>> The properties rather should be defined in top-level than in "if", so I
>> am not sure how would you want to achieve opposite way.
>
> With one more implicit convention like "preferably define the
> properties in the top-level than in if" of course I can't. Otherwise I
> thought something like this would work:
> +allOf:
> + - ...
> + - if:
> + properties:
> + compatible:
> + contains:
> + enum: [...]
> + then:
> + properties:
> + interrupts: ...
> + "#interrupt-cells": ...
> + interrupt-controller: ...
> ...
> - interrupts:
> - "#interrupt-cells":
> - interrupt-controller: ...
>
> With unevaluatedProperties set to false and evaluation performed for
> the particular compatibles such schema shall work with the same
> semantic.
Yes, this will work, but defining properties inside "if" is usually not
readable.
Best regards,
Krzysztof