diff mbox series

[v3,1/6] dt-bindings: nvmem: Fix example

Message ID 20221104163833.1289857-2-miquel.raynal@bootlin.com
State New
Headers
Series Bindings for NVMEM layouts |

Commit Message

Miquel Raynal Nov. 4, 2022, 4:38 p.m. UTC 
  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(+)

Comments

Rob Herring Nov. 10, 2022, 3:51 a.m. UTC | #1 
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>
Srinivas Kandagatla Nov. 11, 2022, 4:47 p.m. UTC | #2 
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 mbox series

Patch

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>;