Re: [PATCH 16/28] dt-bindings: dpll: Add support for Microchip Azurite chip family

From: Ivan Vecera
Date: Thu Apr 10 2025 - 06:30:29 EST




On 10. 04. 25 9:01 dop., Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 09/04/2025 09:19, Ivan Vecera wrote:
+
+maintainers:
+ - Ivan Vecera <ivecera@xxxxxxxxxx>
+
+properties:
+ compatible:
+ enum:
+ - microchip,zl3073x-i2c
+ - microchip,zl3073x-spi

1. No, you do not get two compatibles. Only one.

Will split to two files, one for i2c and one for spi.

No. One device, one compatible.

OK, get it now. I thought that I need to have separate compatible for each bus access type.

2. What is 'x'? Wildcard? If so, drop and use specific compatibles.

Microchip refers to the ZL3073x as a family of compatible DPLL chips
with the same features. There is no need to introduce separate
compatible string for each of them.

So a wildcard, thus drop. Use full product names. Google search gives me
no products for ZL3073x but gives me ZL30735.

I will use more appropriate microchip,azurite compatible.


+
+ reg:
+ maxItems: 1
+
+required:
+ - compatible
+ - reg
+
+allOf:
+ - $ref: /schemas/dpll/dpll-device.yaml
+
+unevaluatedProperties: false
+
+examples:
+ - |
+ i2c {
+ #address-cells = <1>;
+ #size-cells = <0>;
+
+ dpll@70 {
+ compatible = "microchip,zl3073x-i2c";

+ #address-cells = <0>;
+ #size-cells = <0>;

Again, why do you need them if you are not using these two?

The dpll-device.yaml defines them as required. Shouldn't they be
specified explicitly?

But you do not use them. Where is any child node?

I though I have to specify this due to existence of 'input-pins' and 'output-pins' in the example.


+ reg = <0x70>;
+ status = "okay";

Drop
Best regards,
Krzysztof


Thanks,
Ivan