[PATCH 3/6] dt-bindings: display: mediatek: Fix clocks count constraint for new SoCs

[AngeloGioacchino Del Regno]

Il 25/09/24 16:34, Conor Dooley ha scritto:
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 04:42:59PM +0800, Macpaul Lin wrote:
>>
>> On 9/25/24 00:00, Conor Dooley wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 01:42:01PM +0200, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
>>>> Il 24/09/24 12:31, Macpaul Lin ha scritto:
>>>>> The display node in mt8195.dtsi was triggering a CHECK_DTBS error due
>>>>> to an excessively long 'clocks' property:
>>>>>      display at 14f06000: clocks: [[31, 14], [31, 43], [31, 44]] is too long
>>>>>
>>>>> To resolve this issue, add "maxItems: 3" to the 'clocks' property in
>>>>> the DT schema.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fixes: 4ed545e7d100 ("dt-bindings: display: mediatek: disp: split each block to individual yaml")
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Macpaul Lin <macpaul.lin at mediatek.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>     .../devicetree/bindings/display/mediatek/mediatek,split.yaml     | 1 +
>>>>>     1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/mediatek/mediatek,split.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/mediatek/mediatek,split.yaml
>>>>> index e4affc854f3d..42d2d483cc29 100644
>>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/mediatek/mediatek,split.yaml
>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/mediatek/mediatek,split.yaml
>>>>> @@ -57,6 +57,7 @@ properties:
>>>>>       clocks:
>>>>>         items:
>>>>>           - description: SPLIT Clock
>>>>
>>>> That's at least confusing (granted that it works) - either add a description for
>>>> each clock and then set `minItems: 1` (preferred), or remove this "SPLIT Clock"
>>>> description and allow a maximum of 3 clocks.
>>>>
>>>> Removing the description can be done - IMO - because "SPLIT Clock" is, well,
>>>> saying that the SPLIT block gets a SPLIT clock ... stating the obvious, anyway.
>>>
>>> Right, but what are the other two new clocks? Are they as obvious?
>>> There's no clock-names here to give any more information as to what the
>>> other clocks are supposed to be.
>>>
>>> Kinda unrelated, but I think that "SPLIT Clock" probably isn't what the
>>> name of the clock in the IP block is anyway, sounds more like the name
>>> for it on the provider end..
>>
>> Thanks for the suggestions. I think Moudy could help on the new fixes
>> for both DT schem and mt8195.dtsi. This patch could be separated from
>> origin patch set.
> 
> Not sure what you mean about separating it, if you mean correcting the
> description for the split clock sure. The other stuff I mentioned needs
> to be resolved before I'm willing to ack this.

He means separating this patch from the rest of the series that he pushed - which
is okay, as it's a bit mixed anyway :-)

Besides ... Moudy, can you please help to clarify the description of those clocks?

Cheers,
Angelo