Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 31 Dec 2019 09:00:02 +0100
From:   Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>
To:     saravanan sekar <sravanhome@gmail.com>
Cc:     lgirdwood@gmail.com, broonie@kernel.org, robh+dt@kernel.org,
        mark.rutland@arm.com, shawnguo@kernel.org, heiko@sntech.de,
        sam@ravnborg.org, icenowy@aosc.io,
        laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
        Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com, davem@davemloft.net,
        mchehab+samsung@kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] dt-bindings: regulator: add document bindings for
 mpq7920
Message-ID: <20191231080002.efq3yeomzktepegk@hendrix.lan>
References: <20191222204507.32413-1-sravanhome@gmail.com>
 <20191222204507.32413-3-sravanhome@gmail.com>
 <20191223105028.amtzf62yjdpdsfrt@hendrix.home>
 <ec7d8937-724e-946c-0569-da685223d21d@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ec7d8937-724e-946c-0569-da685223d21d@gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 11:23:36PM +0100, saravanan sekar wrote:
> > > +  mps,inc-off-time:
> > > +     description: |
> > > +        mutually exclusive to mps,fixed-off-time an array of 8, linearly increase
> > > +        output delay during power off sequence based on factor of time slot/interval
> > > +        for each regulator.
> > > +     allOf:
> > > +       - $ref: "/schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint8-array"
> > > +       - minimum: 0
> > > +       - maximum: 15
> > > +       - default: [ 0, 6, 0, 6, 7, 7, 7, 9 ]
> > You should check the size of the array too, but if it's a property of
> > the regulators, why not have it in the regulators node?
>
> the node regulators & sub-node of regulators are parsed (initdata) by
> regulator framework during regulator registration,
> so it would be redundant parsing all the node if mentioned under each
> regulator node and this is optional. If you still not
> convinced I will change.

It's not really redundant, since the regulator framework will ignore
whatever custom property you would put there, and your driver would
ignore any generic property in those nodes.

> > > +  regulators:
> > > +    type: object
> > > +    description:
> > > +      list of regulators provided by this controller, must be named
> > > +      after their hardware counterparts BUCK[1-4], one LDORTC, and LDO[2-5]
> > > +      The valid names for regulators are
> > > +      buck1, buck2, buck3, buck4, ldortc, ldo2, ldo3, ldo4, ldo5
> > For the third times now, the names should be validated using
> > propertyNames.
>
> Not sure did I understand your question correctly.
> all the node name under regulators node are parsed by regulator
> framework & validated against
> name in regulator descriptors.

Yes, and the point of the bindings in YAML is to make sure all the
constraints we might have can be catched at compilation / validation
time.

The names of the nodes are a constraint, and propertyNames allows you
to express it.

Maxime