Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: mmc: samsung,exynos-dw-mshc: Make both clocks required

[Ulf Hansson]

On Fri, 6 Mar 2026 at 14:08, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 06/03/2026 13:55, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > On Fri, 6 Mar 2026 at 12:50, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 06/03/2026 12:27, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> >>> The current binding allows one or two clocks to be specified, which is
> >>
> >> It allows only 2 clocks, unless you meant that referenced dw-mshc schema
> >> allows one clock. I don't see it there, so I am a bit confused.
> >>
> >>> wrong, as both clocks are needed. This is also confirmed by looking at the
> >>> exiting upstream DTS files. Let's update the binding to fix this.
> >>>
> >>> Cc: Ping Gao <ping.gao@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> Reported-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>>  .../devicetree/bindings/mmc/samsung,exynos-dw-mshc.yaml          | 1 +
> >>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/samsung,exynos-dw-mshc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/samsung,exynos-dw-mshc.yaml
> >>> index 27c4060f2f91..3e560dde714e 100644
> >>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/samsung,exynos-dw-mshc.yaml
> >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/samsung,exynos-dw-mshc.yaml
> >>> @@ -42,6 +42,7 @@ properties:
> >>>      maxItems: 1
> >>>
> >>>    clocks:
> >>> +    minItems: 2
> >>
> >> That's redundant, 2 clocks are already implied.
> >
> > Doesn't maxItems mean the maximum number of clocks? And since clocks
> > are required, it means that it's perfectly fine to only have one?
> >
> > My points is, we seems to be requiring *exactly* two clocks, no?
>
> minItems is already (implied) at 2, so I don't see what is different
> here. You can open any other binding and see exactly same pattern
> everywhere, so that's why it would be good to see here explanation why
> this binding is different than others. IOW, what set here the number of
> items to 1?

Apologize for the noise and thanks for clarifying!

I just didn't know that omitting minItems implies that it takes the
same value as maxItems.

Actually, there are quite a number of bindings that do specify the
same value for minItems and maxItems, but I assume those could be
simplified then.

Kind regards
Uffe