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

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 10/04/2025 12:28, Ivan Vecera wrote:
> 
>>>> 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.

Hm? What/who gave such hint? Please read writing bindings or any other
guide/speech about it. If that's a zl30735 then use "zl30735" as device
part. If you have more devices, use fallbacks. See writing bindings.

> 
>>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> +  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.

They do not have addressing, so no need for cells.

Best regards,
Krzysztof