Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-49446-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <cover.1706802756.git.geert+renesas@glider.be> <b20aab137058c02ab5af9aaa1280729a02c6ea49.1706802756.git.geert+renesas@glider.be>
 <20240201221151.GA1562458-robh@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20240201221151.GA1562458-robh@kernel.org>
From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2024 09:11:00 +0100
Message-ID: <CAMuHMdWmVs2m3bX=21Ocw8y=8WDJfFy2dami3aC9Kj-4PokDEQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: dt-bindings: gpio-regulator: Fix
 {gpios-,}states limits
To: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
Cc: Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>, 
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>, 
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>, 
	Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Rob,

On Thu, Feb 1, 2024 at 11:11=E2=80=AFPM Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote=
:
> On Thu, Feb 01, 2024 at 04:58:41PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > make dtbs_check:
> >
> >     arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/r8a77951-salvator-xs.dtb: regulator-vcc=
q-sdhi0: Unevaluated properties are not allowed ('gpios-states', 'states' w=
ere unexpected)
> >           from schema $id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/regulator/gpio=
-regulator.yaml#
>
> Unevaluated properties warning here is not interesting. If a property
> fails validation, then it is considered unevaluated. It's that warning
> which is interesting:
>
> arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/r8a77951-salvator-xs.dtb: regulator-vccq-sdhi=
0: gpios-states:0: [1] is too short
>         from schema $id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/regulator/gpio-reg=
ulator.yaml#

Oops (again, I'm afraid my mind is already living at FOSDEM ;-),
I copy-'n-pasted the wrong message...

> > The number of items in "gpios-states" must match the number of items in
> > "gpios", so their limits should be identical.
> >
> > The number of items in "states" must lie within the range from zero up
> > to 2^{number of gpios}.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>
> > ---
> > The second issue did not cause any dtbs_check errors?
>
> I'm not seeing 'states' fail, but it looks like you did? Is that the
> issue you mean? Looks like in the matrix case, we're now setting
> minItems if unspecified.

No, I did not see states fail, only gpios-states.
Hence "the second issue did not cause errors".

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--=20
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k=
org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. Bu=
t
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like t=
hat.
                                -- Linus Torvalds