Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] dt-bindings: serial: renesas,scif: Validate 'interrupts' and 'interrupt-names'

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 19/03/2024 14:25, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Krzysztof,
> 
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 2:04 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski
> <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 19/03/2024 13:43, Lad, Prabhakar wrote:
>>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/renesas,scif.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/renesas,scif.yaml
>>>>>> index af72c3420453..53f18e9810fd 100644
>>>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/renesas,scif.yaml
>>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/renesas,scif.yaml
>>>>>> @@ -82,38 +82,6 @@ properties:
>>>>>>    reg:
>>>>>>      maxItems: 1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -  interrupts:
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't understand what is happening with this patchset. Interrupts must
>>>>> stay here. Where did you receive any different feedback?
>>>>
>>>> Look how it is done:
>>>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.8/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/qcom,ufs.yaml#L44
>>>>
>>> Thanks for the pointer, as the above binding doesn't have any
>>
>> Yeah, that's just an example to point you the concept: top level
>> property comes with widest constraints (or widest matching items
>> description) and each variant narrows the choice.
>>
>>> description items as compared to our case, to clarify I have updated
>>> the binding is below. Is this the correct approach?
>>>
>>> option #1
>>> ---------------
>>
>>
>> Yes, it looks correct.
> 
> Why duplicate all the descriptions? The only differences are the number
> of valid interrupts?
> What was wrong with "[PATCH v2 2/2] dt-bindings: serial: renesas,scif:
> Validate 'interrupts' and 'interrupt-names'"[1]?
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240307114217.34784-3-prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/

I have impression that only two variants out of three have same
descriptions... but now I see mistake I made in above. I read that first
interrupt is "Error interrupt" but it is "error or combined". Sorry for
that, I think most of my comment there is not correct.

It could be made oneOf?

    oneOf:
     - items:
          - description: A combined interrupt
     - items:
         - ....
       minItems: 4
?



Best regards,
Krzysztof