| Message ID | 20220902185148.635292-1-ahalaney@redhat.com |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | regulator: dt-bindings: qcom,rpmh: dt-binding fixups | expand |
On Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 01:51:45PM -0500, Andrew Halaney wrote: > Hi, > > This is my poor attempt at getting devicetree validation into a better > state for qcom,rpmh-regulator.yaml. This is a follow-up to Johan's > request for this over here: > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/Yw8EE%2FESDUnIRf8P@hovoldconsulting.com/ > > In particular, I'm not certain patch 1 is the correct way to handle > things, and patch 2 makes validation too wide for the *-supply nodes. > > I'd love any feedback here as I'm really not experienced in any of the > spaces (regulator, rpmh, or dt schema) so nit picking is welcomed. v2 posted over here: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20220906201959.69920-1-ahalaney@redhat.com/
Hi, This is my poor attempt at getting devicetree validation into a better state for qcom,rpmh-regulator.yaml. This is a follow-up to Johan's request for this over here: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/Yw8EE%2FESDUnIRf8P@hovoldconsulting.com/ In particular, I'm not certain patch 1 is the correct way to handle things, and patch 2 makes validation too wide for the *-supply nodes. I'd love any feedback here as I'm really not experienced in any of the spaces (regulator, rpmh, or dt schema) so nit picking is welcomed. Thanks in advance, Andrew Andrew Halaney (3): regulator: dt-bindings: qcom,rpmh: Use additionalProperties regulator: dt-bindings: qcom,rpmh: Specify supply property regulator: dt-bindings: qcom,rpmh: Indicate regulator-allow-set-load dependencies .../bindings/regulator/qcom,rpmh-regulator.yaml | 11 +++++++++-- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)