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

[Marijn Suijten]

On 2023-07-19 01:01:54, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> 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.

I thought it was both.

Magic.

- Marijn