Re: [PATCH v2 10/15] dt-bindings: msm: dsi-phy-14nm: Document SM6125 variant

[Dmitry Baryshkov]

On 19/07/2023 00:00, Marijn Suijten wrote:
> On 2023-06-29 13:54:13, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > On 27/06/2023 23:14, Marijn Suijten wrote:
> > > Document availability of the 14nm DSI PHY on SM6125.  Note that this
> > > compatible uses the SoC-suffix variant, intead of postfixing an
> > > arbitrary number without the sm/sdm portion.  The PHY is not powered by
> > > a vcca regulator like on most SoCs, but by the MX power domain that is
> > > provided via the power-domains property and a single corresponding
> > > required-opps.
> > >
> > > Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >    .../devicetree/bindings/display/msm/dsi-phy-14nm.yaml         | 11 +++++++++++
> > >    1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/msm/dsi-phy-14nm.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/msm/dsi-phy-14nm.yaml
> > > index a43e11d3b00d..183a26f8a6dc 100644
> > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/msm/dsi-phy-14nm.yaml
> > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/msm/dsi-phy-14nm.yaml
> > > @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ properties:
> > >          - qcom,dsi-phy-14nm-2290
> > >          - qcom,dsi-phy-14nm-660
> > >          - qcom,dsi-phy-14nm-8953
> > > +      - qcom,sm6125-dsi-phy-14nm
> > >    
> > >      reg:
> > >        items:
> > > @@ -35,6 +36,16 @@ properties:
> > >      vcca-supply:
> > >        description: Phandle to vcca regulator device node.
> > >    
> > > +  power-domains:
> > > +    description:
> > > +      A phandle and PM domain specifier for an optional power domain.
> > > +    maxItems: 1
> > > +
> > > +  required-opps:
> > > +    description:
> > > +      A phandle to an OPP node describing an optional performance point.
> >
> > I'd rephrase this to be something more exact, like 'desribing power
> > domain's performance point'.
>
> Sure.  I'll leave out the word "optional", that becomes obvious from
> maxItems:1 without minItems, together with referencing a PM which itself
> is already optional.

no, default minItems is equal to maxItems. It is not listing this 
property under the required what makes it optional.

> - Marijn
>
> > > +    maxItems: 1
> > > +
> > >    required:
> > >      - compatible
> > >      - reg
> >
> > --
> > With best wishes
> > Dmitry

--
With best wishes
Dmitry