On 24/11/2025 22:39, Akhil P Oommen wrote: > 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
The allOf does not matter here. If these were separate if:then: then it would be the same. > syntax, does moving this entire block under an 'else' make sense? Or is No, never nest blocks. > there a saner alternative? Not sure, I don't remember the code. Original code was not easy to read, with your changes it will not be easier. So the only alternative I see is to make it simple and obvious. Best regards, Krzysztof
