On 11/22/2025 4:32 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On Sat, Nov 22, 2025 at 03:22:16AM +0530, Akhil P Oommen wrote: >> + >> + - if: >> + properties: >> + compatible: >> + contains: >> + const: qcom,adreno-612.0 >> + then: >> + properties: >> + clocks: >> + items: >> + - description: GPU Core clock >> + >> + clock-names: >> + items: >> + - const: core >> + >> + required: >> + - clocks >> + - clock-names >> + >> else: > > I am pretty sure you break not only intention/logic behindi this else, > but actually cause real warnings to appear. > > The else was intentional, right? So the pattern further will not match > some of devices defined in if:. Now else is for different part, so only > 612 out of these devices is excluded. > > There is a reason we do not want ever else:if: in bindings. If it > appeared, sure, maybe there is some benefit of it, but it means you need > to be more careful now.
Aah! I missed that this comes under an 'allOf'. Not an expert in this syntax, does moving this entire block under an 'else' make sense? Or is there a saner alternative? Regrettably, I tested dtbs-check only for the talos-ride dtb. -Akhil. > >> if: >> properties: >> >> -- >> 2.51.0 >>
