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

[Ivan Vecera]

On 10. 04. 25 2:19 odp., Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> 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.
Something like this:

1)
properties:
  compatible:
    enum:
      - microchip,zl30731
      - microchip,zl30732
      - microchip,zl30732
      - microchip,zl80032
      - microchip,zl80732

or

2)
properties:
  compatible:
    items:
      - enum:
          - microchip,zl30731
          - microchip,zl30732
          - microchip,zl30732
          - microchip,zl80032
          - microchip,zl80732
      - const: microchip,azurite

If 1) what should be the filename ?

Thanks for patience.

Ivan

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

Thanks for explanation.

> Best regards,
> Krzysztof