Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <23436455-098f-6e21-2330-d91158a591ad@kernel.org>
Date:   Fri, 23 Dec 2022 12:22:34 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.6.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: Add support for
 syspower protocol
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        sudeep.holla@arm.com, Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org
References: <20221222183823.518856-1-cristian.marussi@arm.com>
 <20221222183823.518856-5-cristian.marussi@arm.com>
 <3d89e135-c8e4-ede4-950f-03900a660822@kernel.org>
 <Y6WE1zQAxYYn6Ahz@e120937-lin>
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <Y6WE1zQAxYYn6Ahz@e120937-lin>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 23/12/2022 11:37, Cristian Marussi wrote:

>>>  
>>> +  protocol@12:
>>> +    type: object
>>> +    properties:
>>> +      reg:
>>> +        const: 0x12
>>> +
>>
>> Why? It did not got lost, it's already covered by pattern. If you refer
>> to particular warning, please paste it in commit msg. Otherwise it looks
>> incorrect.
>>
> 
> Yes indeed, but as a matter of fact it seemed to me that we used to add an
> entry and an example for all the currently published standard SCMI protocols,
> even though already covered by the patternProp (which covers also any
> custom-vendor protocol in the wild) and not sporting any additional
> custom properties (see protocol@18), but maybe this is just a unneeded wrong
> habit adding only cruft to the bindings.
> 
> If you think it does not add any value I can happily drop this, or
> limiting the addition just to the example (and/or drop equally the unneeded
> protocol@18 node too in this case).

Duplicating the node (once in properties, second in patternProperties)
is not needed. I am also not sure what would be the point to add to the
example - example does not have to be complete DTS for all cases, but
illustrate the binding and allow is to test it.

Best regards,
Krzysztof