lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Apr]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: mtd: partitions: Add binding for Sercomm parser
From
On 09/04/2022 14:26, Mikhail Zhilkin wrote:
>>
>> In any case this requires vendor prefix.
>
> I'm not sure that "scpart-id" is necessary here. "sercomm,sc-partitions"
> is necessary. I'm going to add vendor prefix in a separate patch. Is this
> ok?

Yes.

>
> ---
>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml | 2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml
> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml
> index 01430973ecec..65ff22364fb3 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml
> @@ -1082,6 +1082,8 @@ patternProperties:
>      description: Sensirion AG
>    "^sensortek,.*":
>      description: Sensortek Technology Corporation
> +  "^sercomm,.*":
> +    description: Sercomm (Suzhou) Corporation
>    "^sff,.*":
>      description: Small Form Factor Committee
>    "^sgd,.*":
> --
>
>>> +
>>> +required:
>>> + - compatible
>> Missing reg.
>
> reg isn't required. Parser can read partition offsets and sizes from
> SC PART MAP table. Or do you mean something else?  All is ok
> without reg definition in "Example" (except the warns that reg property
> is missing).

reg might not be required for current implementation but it is required
by devicetree for every node with unit address. Do you expect here nodes
without unit addresses?

>> Are you sure that you tested your bindings? You miss here address/size
>> cells and children, so you should have big fat warning.
>>
>> Plus your DTS example has error and does not compile...
>
> Whole dts, for the real device (not for example), was tested many times.

Yeah, I did not speak about whole DTS, but bindings and example in the
bindings.

> Thank you for your feedback! I checked the another examples and there
> are no any warnings now. But I'm not yet sure that "properties" and
> "required" are correct.
> What do you think (or what else I have to read / check)?

There is no way you tested the bindings. There are for sure warnings
because it simply cannot be even compiled. The writing-schema.rst
describes how to test it.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-04-09 14:45    [W:0.051 / U:1.688 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site