diff mbox series

[01/11] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: Document assigned-clocks and assigned-clock-rates

Message ID 20230315114806.3819515-2-cristian.ciocaltea@collabora.com
State New
Headers show
Series Enable I2S support for RK3588/RK3588S SoCs | expand

Commit Message

Cristian Ciocaltea March 15, 2023, 11:47 a.m. UTC
Since commit df4fdd0db475 ("dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: Restrict
protocol child node properties") the following dtbs_check warning is
shown:

  rk3588-rock-5b.dtb: scmi: protocol@14: Unevaluated properties are not allowed ('assigned-clock-rates', 'assigned-clocks' were unexpected)

Add the missing properties.

Signed-off-by: Cristian Ciocaltea <cristian.ciocaltea@collabora.com>
---
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml | 3 +++
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)

Comments

Rob Herring March 16, 2023, 8:34 p.m. UTC | #1
+Stephen

On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 01:47:56PM +0200, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote:
> Since commit df4fdd0db475 ("dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: Restrict
> protocol child node properties") the following dtbs_check warning is
> shown:
> 
>   rk3588-rock-5b.dtb: scmi: protocol@14: Unevaluated properties are not allowed ('assigned-clock-rates', 'assigned-clocks' were unexpected)

I think that's a somewhat questionable use of assigned-clock-rates. It 
should be located with the consumer rather than the provider IMO. The 
consumers of those 2 clocks are the CPU nodes.

Rob
Sudeep Holla March 16, 2023, 10:26 p.m. UTC | #2
On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 03:34:17PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> +Stephen
> 
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 01:47:56PM +0200, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote:
> > Since commit df4fdd0db475 ("dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: Restrict
> > protocol child node properties") the following dtbs_check warning is
> > shown:
> > 
> >   rk3588-rock-5b.dtb: scmi: protocol@14: Unevaluated properties are not allowed ('assigned-clock-rates', 'assigned-clocks' were unexpected)
> 
> I think that's a somewhat questionable use of assigned-clock-rates. It 
> should be located with the consumer rather than the provider IMO. The 
> consumers of those 2 clocks are the CPU nodes.
> 

Agreed. We definitely don't use those in the scmi clk provider driver.
So NACK for the generic SCMI binding change.
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml
index 2f7c51c75e85..10cc7ee46893 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml
@@ -246,6 +246,9 @@  $defs:
           Channel specifier required when using OP-TEE transport and
           protocol has a dedicated communication channel.
 
+      assigned-clocks: true
+      assigned-clock-rates: true
+
     required:
       - reg