[PATCH v12 12/13] dt-bindings: display: vop2: Add rk3576 support

[Andy Yan]

Hi Krzysztof,
At 2025-01-22 17:55:34, "Krzysztof Kozlowski" <krzk at kernel.org> wrote:
>On 22/01/2025 10:46, Andy Yan wrote:
>>>> -      The VOP interrupt is shared by several interrupt sources, such as
>>>> -      frame start (VSYNC), line flag and other status interrupts.
>>>> +      For VOP version under rk3576, the interrupt is shared by several interrupt
>>>> +      sources, such as frame start (VSYNC), line flag and other interrupt status.
>>>> +      For VOP version from rk3576 there is a system interrupt for bus error, and
>>>> +      every video port has it's independent interrupts for vsync and other video
>>>> +      port related error interrupts.
>>>> +
>>>> +  interrupt-names:
>>>> +    items:
>>>> +      - const: sys
>>>> +      - const: vp0
>>>> +      - const: vp1
>>>> +      - const: vp2
>>>>  
>>>>    # See compatible-specific constraints below.
>>>>    clocks:
>>>> @@ -135,6 +147,8 @@ allOf:
>>>>          interrupts:
>>>>            maxItems: 1
>>>
>>> So this change moves to this patch.
>>>
>>>>  
>>>> +        interrupt-names: false
>>>> +
>>>>          ports:
>>>>            required:
>>>>              - port at 0
>>>> @@ -148,6 +162,39 @@ allOf:
>>>>        required:
>>>>          - rockchip,grf
>>>>  
>>>> +  - if:
>>>> +      properties:
>>>> +        compatible:
>>>> +          contains:
>>>> +            enum:
>>>> +              - rockchip,rk3576-vop
>>>> +    then:
>>>> +      properties:
>>>> +        clocks:
>>>> +          minItems: 5
>>>
>>> No. You did not implement my comment at all.
>>>
>>> So again:
>>> "Why minItems? Nothing in this patch makes sense for me. Neither changing
>>> existing binding nor new binding for rk3576."
>> 
>> Do you mean because I already defined minItems of clocks is 5 on the top, so 
>> there is no need to redefine the same minItems here ?
>
>Lists must be constrained. This is not constrained from the max items
>and you repeat existing constrain.
>
>For every variable list you need to provide min and maxItems, except the
>edge cases when dimension matches top level dimension.
>
>Standard example is:
>
>https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.11-rc6/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/qcom,ufs.yaml#L127
>
>which I mention on mailing lists multiple times. Also described this

>case exactly on my two talks...


Do you mean these two talks[0][1] ?
[0] https://eoss24.sched.com/event/1aBEf/whack-a-mole-with-dts-validation-in-the-linux-kernel-krzysztof-kozlowski-linaro?linkback=grid
[1] https://eoss2023.sched.com/event/1LcNo/how-to-get-your-dt-schema-bindings-accepted-in-less-than-10-iterations-krzysztof-kozlowski-linaro 

>
>> 
>>>
>>> To address such comment, come with reasonable answer to "why". Not just
>>> send the same. It's a waste of my time to keep reviewing the same.
>> 
>> Before sending this patch, I asked you what the next step should be, but you didn't respond.
>
>You asked whether splitting is correct and I did not object that. I
>already said: " You need to split reorganizing", then you asked if you
>can split, so sorry, I am not going to keep repeating the same multiple
>times.
>
>But anyway this is not about the split, so you did not question last
>time how to do it. You just skipped my paragraph asking for "Why?".
>
>
>
>Best regards,
>Krzysztof