[PATCH 06/15] dt-bindings: display/msm: sc7180-dpu: Describe SM6125

[Marijn Suijten]

On 2023-06-26 18:16:58, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 25/06/2023 21:52, Marijn Suijten wrote:
> > On 2023-06-24 11:12:52, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> On 24/06/2023 02:41, Marijn Suijten wrote:
> >>> SM6125 is identical to SM6375 except that while downstream also defines
> >>> a throttle clock, its presence results in timeouts whereas SM6375
> >>> requires it to not observe any timeouts.
> >>
> >> Then it should not be allowed, so you need either "else:" block or
> >> another "if: properties: compatible:" to disallow it. Because in current
> >> patch it would be allowed.
> > 
> > That means this binding is wrong/incomplete for all other SoCs then.
> > clock(-name)s has 6 items, and sets `minItems: 6`.  Only for sm6375-dpu

Of course meant to say that clock(-name)s has **7** items, not 6.

> > does it set `minItems: 7`, but an else case is missing.
> 
> Ask the author why it is done like this.

Konrad, can you clarify why other 

> > Shall I send a Fixes: ed41005f5b7c ("dt-bindings: display/msm:
> > sc7180-dpu: Describe SM6350 and SM6375") for that, and should maxItems:
> > 6 be the default under clock(-name)s or in an else:?
> 
> There is no bug to fix. Or at least it is not yet known. Whether other
> devices should be constrained as well - sure, sounds reasonable, but I
> did not check the code exactly.

I don't know either, but we need this information to decide whether to
use `maxItems: 6`:

1. Directly on the property;
2. In an `else:` case on the current `if: sm6375-dpu` (should have the
   same effect as 1., afaik);
3. In a second `if:` case that lists all SoCS explicitly.

Since we don't have this information, I think option 3. is the right way
to go, setting `maxItems: 6` for qcom,sm6125-dpu.

However, it is not yet understood why downstream is able to use the
throttle clock without repercussions.

> We talk here about this patch.

We used this patch to discover that other SoCs are similarly
unconstrained.  But if you don't want me to look into it, by all means!
Saves me a lot of time.  So I will go with option 3.

- Marijn