| Message ID | 20221104163833.1289857-2-miquel.raynal@bootlin.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Bindings for NVMEM layouts | expand |
On Fri, 04 Nov 2022 17:38:28 +0100, Miquel Raynal wrote: > Despite not being listed nor required within the top level nvmem yaml > file, the "compatible" property is mandatory and is actually enforced by > all the nvmem provider bindings. > > Unfortunately, the lack of compatible in the nvmem.yaml to level > description file lead to the example not matching anything and thus not > being checked at all. > > Let's pick a compatible almost randomly (one which is already used with > the qfprom label) to make the example at least valid on a semantic > point of view and getting it checked. > > Signed-off-by: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> > --- > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/nvmem.yaml | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
On 04/11/2022 16:38, Miquel Raynal wrote: > Despite not being listed nor required within the top level nvmem yaml > file, the "compatible" property is mandatory and is actually enforced by > all the nvmem provider bindings. > > Unfortunately, the lack of compatible in the nvmem.yaml to level > description file lead to the example not matching anything and thus not > being checked at all. > > Let's pick a compatible almost randomly (one which is already used with > the qfprom label) to make the example at least valid on a semantic > point of view and getting it checked. > > Signed-off-by: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> Applied thanks --srini > --- > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/nvmem.yaml | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/nvmem.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/nvmem.yaml > index 1eb22dba364c..0455506fc30f 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/nvmem.yaml > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/nvmem.yaml > @@ -67,6 +67,7 @@ examples: > #include <dt-bindings/gpio/gpio.h> > > qfprom: eeprom@700000 { > + compatible = "qcom,msm8974-qfprom", "qcom,qfprom"; > #address-cells = <1>; > #size-cells = <1>; > reg = <0x00700000 0x100000>;
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/nvmem.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/nvmem.yaml index 1eb22dba364c..0455506fc30f 100644 --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/nvmem.yaml +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/nvmem.yaml @@ -67,6 +67,7 @@ examples: #include <dt-bindings/gpio/gpio.h> qfprom: eeprom@700000 { + compatible = "qcom,msm8974-qfprom", "qcom,qfprom"; #address-cells = <1>; #size-cells = <1>; reg = <0x00700000 0x100000>;
Despite not being listed nor required within the top level nvmem yaml file, the "compatible" property is mandatory and is actually enforced by all the nvmem provider bindings. Unfortunately, the lack of compatible in the nvmem.yaml to level description file lead to the example not matching anything and thus not being checked at all. Let's pick a compatible almost randomly (one which is already used with the qfprom label) to make the example at least valid on a semantic point of view and getting it checked. Signed-off-by: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> --- Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/nvmem.yaml | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)