Re: [PATCH v4] dt-bindings: clock: via,vt8500: Convert to DT Schema

[Uday Kiran]

> > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
> > +%YAML 1.2
> > +---
> > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/clock/via,vt8500-clock.yaml#
> > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
> > +
> > +title: VIA/Wondermedia VT8500 Clock Controller
>
> How PMC is a clock controller? Really?

No Krzysztof, actually that was a wrong direction in v4.

> > +
> > +maintainers:
> > +  - Michael Turquette <mturquette@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > +  - Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> Subsystem maintainers do not care about PMC. This can be platform
> maintainer.

I agree with you. I changed maintainers accordingly.

> > +
> > +description:
> > +  Clock controller bindings for VIA/Wondermedia VT8500 and Wondermedia WM8xxx
> > +  series SoCs.
> > +
> > +select:
> > +  properties:
> > +    compatible:
> > +      const: via,vt8500-pmc
> > +
> > +  required:
> > +    - compatible
>
> Why do you have select?
>
> I don't understand your changes. This was not at v2 and I did not ask to
> change that.

The select: block with via,vt8500-pmc and the clocks: type: object were
mistakenly added to via,vt8500-clock.yaml in v4 — leftover confusion from
trying to handle the PMC node's clock container in the same schema. In v5 these
are removed from the clock schema entirely. The PMC binding is now a separate
patch (via,vt8500-pmc.yaml) which is the right place for the clock container
node description.

> > +
> > +properties:
> > +  compatible:
> > +    const: via,vt8500-pmc
>
>
> So via,vt8500-clock.yaml or pmc? Why aren't you removing the pmc file?
> Why is this located at clocks?

In the next revision, this patch is scope only to the clock provider bindings
(via,vt8500-device-clock, via,vt8500-pll-clock, wm,*-pll-clock). It no longer
models PMC/top-level node properties and does not modify PMC binding files.

> > +
> > +  reg:
> > +    maxItems: 1
> > +
> > +  clocks:
> > +    type: object
> > +    additionalProperties: true
>
> No, this cannot be "true".

Agreed, I dropped that structure and kept strict schema validation.

I also fixed remaining related points from review/bot feedback:
- example validation issues
- dependency constraints (enable-reg/enable-bit, divisor-mask/divisor-reg)
- explicit reg: false for via,vt8500-device-clock

Regards,
Udaya Kiran Challa