Re: [RFC PATCH] dt-bindings: regulator: twl-regulator: convert to yaml

[Andreas Kemnade]

On Tue, 28 May 2024 13:25:29 +0200
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 28/05/2024 13:16, Andreas Kemnade wrote:
> > On Tue, 28 May 2024 12:04:22 +0200
> > Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >   
> >> On 28/05/2024 08:57, Andreas Kemnade wrote:  
> >>> Convert the regulator bindings to yaml files. To allow only the regulator
> >>> compatible corresponding to the toplevel mfd compatible, split the file
> >>> into one per device.
> >>>
> >>> To not need to allow any subnode name, specify clearly node names
> >>> for all the regulators.
> >>>
> >>> Drop one twl5030 compatible due to no documentation on mfd side and no
> >>> users of the twl5030.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Andreas Kemnade <andreas@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>> Reason for being RFC:
> >>> the integration into ti,twl.yaml seems not to work as expected
> >>> make dt_binding_check crashes without any clear error message
> >>> if used on the ti,twl.yaml
> >>>
> >>>  .../devicetree/bindings/mfd/ti,twl.yaml       |   4 +-
> >>>  .../regulator/ti,twl4030-regulator.yaml       | 402 ++++++++++++++++++
> >>>  .../regulator/ti,twl6030-regulator.yaml       | 292 +++++++++++++
> >>>  .../regulator/ti,twl6032-regulator.yaml       | 238 +++++++++++
> >>>  .../bindings/regulator/twl-regulator.txt      |  80 ----
> >>>  5 files changed, 935 insertions(+), 81 deletions(-)
> >>>  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/ti,twl4030-regulator.yaml
> >>>  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/ti,twl6030-regulator.yaml
> >>>  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/ti,twl6032-regulator.yaml
> >>>  delete mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/twl-regulator.txt
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/ti,twl.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/ti,twl.yaml
> >>> index c2357fecb56cc..4ced6e471d338 100644
> >>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/ti,twl.yaml
> >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/ti,twl.yaml
> >>> @@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ allOf:
> >>>            properties:
> >>>              compatible:
> >>>                const: ti,twl4030-wdt
> >>> -
> >>> +        $ref: /schemas/regulator/ti,twl4030-regulator.yaml    
> >>
> >> That's not needed, just like othehr refs below.
> >>  
> > but how to prevent error messages like this:
> > 
> > arch/arm/boot/dts/ti/omap/omap2430-sdp.dtb: twl@48: Unevaluated properties are not allowed ('gpio', 'keypad', 'pwm', 'pwmled', 'regulator-vaux1', 'regulator-vaux2', 'regulator-vaux3', 'regulator-vaux4', 'regulator-vdac', 'regulator-vdd1', 'regulator-vintana1', 'regulator-vintana2', 'regulator-vintdig', 'regulator-vio', 'regulator-vmmc1', 'regulator-vmmc2', 'regulator-vpll1', 'regulator-vpll2', 'regulator-vsim', 'regulator-vusb1v5', 'regulator-vusb1v8', 'regulator-vusb3v1
> > 
> > esp. the regulator parts without adding stuff to ti,twl.yaml?  
> 
> Eh? That's a watchdog, not regulator. Why do you add ref to regulator?
> 
hmm, wrongly indented? At what level doet it belong? But as the regualor.yaml stuff can
be shortened, maybe just add it directly to ti,twl.yaml to avoid that trouble.

> ...
> 
> >>> +
> >>> +  regulator-vaux2:
> >>> +    type: object
> >>> +    $ref: regulator.yaml#
> >>> +    unevaluatedProperties: false
> >>> +    properties:
> >>> +      compatible:
> >>> +        const: "ti,twl4030-vaux2"
> >>> +
> >>> +      regulator-initial-mode:
> >>> +        items:
> >>> +          - items:
> >>> +              enum:
> >>> +                - 0x08 # Sleep mode, the nominal output voltage is maintained
> >>> +                       # with low power consumption with low load current capability
> >>> +                - 0x0e # Active mode, the regulator can deliver its nominal output
> >>> +                       # voltage with full-load current capability    
> >>
> >> These entries are the same. Just use patternProperties and enum for
> >> compatible.
> >>  
> > hmm, if I am using that, how do I prevent e.g. constructions like this to be
> > valid?
> > 
> > regulator-vaux2 {
> > 	compatible = "ti,twl4030-vaux1";
> > };
> >   
> 
> Why would node name matter if you have compatible? The entire point of
> compatibles is to not to rely on node names.
> 
Hmm, even if we rely on them, it should somehow match what is inside that node
usually. We have @xx and reg=<xx>; e.g. So relax the stuff to allowing
any regulator-.* as node name independently of the contents?

And since that all is then shorter, maybe add stuff just directly to ti,twl.yaml?

Regards,
Andreas