Convert IOP3xx and IXP4xx XScale bindings to DT schema.

Signed-off-by: Shi Hao <i.shihao.999@gmail.com>
---
Note:
* This patch is part of the GSoC2026 application process for device tree bindings conversions
* https://github.com/LinuxFoundationGSoC/ProjectIdeas/wiki/GSoC-2026-Device-Tree-Bindings
---
 .../devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-iop3xx.txt    | 20 ---------
 .../bindings/i2c/intel,ixp4xx-i2c.yaml        | 41 +++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
 delete mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-iop3xx.txt
 create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/intel,ixp4xx-i2c.yaml

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-iop3xx.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-iop3xx.txt
deleted file mode 100644
index dcc8390e0d24..000000000000
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-iop3xx.txt
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,20 +0,0 @@
-i2c Controller on XScale platforms such as IOP3xx and IXP4xx
-
-Required properties:
-- compatible : Must be one of
-  "intel,iop3xx-i2c"
-  "intel,ixp4xx-i2c";
-- reg
-- #address-cells = <1>;
-- #size-cells = <0>;
-
-Optional properties:
-- Child nodes conforming to i2c bus binding
-
-Example:
-
-i2c@c8011000 {
-	compatible = "intel,ixp4xx-i2c";
-	reg = <0xc8011000 0x18>;
-	interrupts = <33 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW>;
-};
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/intel,ixp4xx-i2c.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/intel,ixp4xx-i2c.yaml
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..13ba2a0e336e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/intel,ixp4xx-i2c.yaml
@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+# SPDX License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
+%YAML 1.2
+---
+$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/i2c/intel,ixp4xx-i2c.yaml#
+$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
+
+title: I2c Controller on XScale platforms such as IOP3xx and IXP4xx
+
+maintainers:
+  - Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@kernel.org>
+
+allOf:
+  - $ref: /schemas/i2c/i2c-controller.yaml#
+
+properties:
+  compatible:
+    enum:
+      - intel,ixp4xx-i2c
+      - intel,iop3xx-i2c
+
+  reg:
+    maxItems: 1
+
+  interrupts:
+    maxItems: 1
+
+required:
+  - compatible
+  - reg
+
+unevaluatedProperties: false
+
+examples:
+  - |
+    #include <dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/irq.h>
+
+    i2c@c8011000 {
+        compatible = "intel,ixp4xx-i2c";
+        reg = <0xc8011000 0x18>;
+        interrupts = <33 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW>;
+    };
--
2.53.0

On Tue, Mar 24, 2026 at 07:20:10PM +0530, Shi Hao wrote:
> Convert IOP3xx and IXP4xx XScale bindings to DT schema.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Shi Hao <i.shihao.999@gmail.com>

Please run scripts/checkpatch.pl on the patches and fix reported
warnings. After that, run also 'scripts/checkpatch.pl --strict' on the
patches and (probably) fix more warnings. Some warnings can be ignored,
especially from --strict run, but the code here looks like it needs a
fix. Feel free to get in touch if the warning is not clear.

> ---
> Note:
> * This patch is part of the GSoC2026 application process for device tree bindings conversions
> * https://github.com/LinuxFoundationGSoC/ProjectIdeas/wiki/GSoC-2026-Device-Tree-Bindings
> ---

...

> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/intel,ixp4xx-i2c.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/intel,ixp4xx-i2c.yaml
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..13ba2a0e336e
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/intel,ixp4xx-i2c.yaml
> @@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
> +# SPDX License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
> +%YAML 1.2
> +---
> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/i2c/intel,ixp4xx-i2c.yaml#
> +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
> +
> +title: I2c Controller on XScale platforms such as IOP3xx and IXP4xx
> +
> +maintainers:
> +  - Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@kernel.org>
> +
> +allOf:
> +  - $ref: /schemas/i2c/i2c-controller.yaml#
> +
> +properties:
> +  compatible:
> +    enum:
> +      - intel,ixp4xx-i2c
> +      - intel,iop3xx-i2c

Alphabetical order. Dunno why you reversed it from original binding.


> +
> +  reg:
> +    maxItems: 1
> +
> +  interrupts:
> +    maxItems: 1

This wasn't in the original binding.

What does my guideline/expectations for GSoC say? Did you read it?

Best regards,
Krzysztof

On Wed, Mar 25, 2026 at 12:16:27PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

> Please run scripts/checkpatch.pl on the patches and fix reported
> warnings. After that, run also 'scripts/checkpatch.pl --strict' on the
> patches and (probably) fix more warnings. Some warnings can be ignored,
> especially from --strict run, but the code here looks like it needs a
> fix. Feel free to get in touch if the warning is not clear.
> 

Hello Krzysztof, 

      Once again thank you for your time. Those warnings are from running
      checkpatch.pl without the --strict option i myself discovered when you
      said that because i only use it with --strict option. I thought
      checkpatch.pl --strict  was more strict then checkpatch.pl but i guess
      it is not so strict as i thought it was. But apart from this i mean
      why in the first place there is the --strict option when it is actually
      not so strict it must have shown all errors, checks and warnings but it
      does not Anyway i will make sure to run both from now on thanks for pointing
      it.

> > +properties:
> > +  compatible:
> > +    enum:
> > +      - intel,ixp4xx-i2c
> > +      - intel,iop3xx-i2c
> 
> Alphabetical order. Dunno why you reversed it from original binding.
> 
> 
> > +
> > +  reg:
> > +    maxItems: 1
> > +
> > +  interrupts:
> > +    maxItems: 1
> 
> This wasn't in the original binding.
> 
> What does my guideline/expectations for GSoC say? Did you read it?
> 
> 

 I will make sure to fix these issues in the next version. Also
 i did not read any guidelines so, please provide some resources
 to the GSoC guidlines you mentioned. I texted on IRC but Daniel
 said email is where i should ask for it. Thanks for your time.

Kind regards
Shihao

On 25/03/2026 16:10, ShiHao wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2026 at 12:16:27PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> 
>> Please run scripts/checkpatch.pl on the patches and fix reported
>> warnings. After that, run also 'scripts/checkpatch.pl --strict' on the
>> patches and (probably) fix more warnings. Some warnings can be ignored,
>> especially from --strict run, but the code here looks like it needs a
>> fix. Feel free to get in touch if the warning is not clear.
>>
> 
> Hello Krzysztof, 
> 
>       Once again thank you for your time. Those warnings are from running
>       checkpatch.pl without the --strict option i myself discovered when you
>       said that because i only use it with --strict option. I thought
>       checkpatch.pl --strict  was more strict then checkpatch.pl but i guess
>       it is not so strict as i thought it was. But apart from this i mean
>       why in the first place there is the --strict option when it is actually
>       not so strict it must have shown all errors, checks and warnings but it
>       does not Anyway i will make sure to run both from now on thanks for pointing
>       it.

I don't understand this at all.

You did not run checkpatch. Neither with --strict nor without --strict.
The --strict does not matter, why are you even mentioning it if you did
not run the checkpatch in the first place?

Best regards,
Krzysztof

On Wed, Mar 25, 2026 at 04:15:39PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> I don't understand this at all.
> 
> You did not run checkpatch. Neither with --strict nor without --strict.
> The --strict does not matter, why are you even mentioning it if you did
> not run the checkpatch in the first place?
> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof

Although I did run it, I think it might be best to pause this thread here.
I will send the next version in the coming days after properly running the
checkpatch.pl script. Also, you mentioned some guidelines regarding GSoC
could you please let me know where I can read them?

Thanks
Shihao

On 25/03/2026 19:31, ShiHao wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2026 at 04:15:39PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> I don't understand this at all.
>>
>> You did not run checkpatch. Neither with --strict nor without --strict.
>> The --strict does not matter, why are you even mentioning it if you did
>> not run the checkpatch in the first place?
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Krzysztof
> 
> Although I did run it, I think it might be best to pause this thread here.

By running, I assume actually read its output and fix it, so please
share why each one of your patches has the same mistake reported by
checkpatch?

> I will send the next version in the coming days after properly running the
> checkpatch.pl script. Also, you mentioned some guidelines regarding GSoC
> could you please let me know where I can read them?

I gave them to GSoC folks, so they should be in the GSoC DT
guidelines/description. It was also posted for more than a year on
@krzk@social.kernel.org and some days ago I updated it as well.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

On Thu, Mar 26, 2026 at 08:08:06AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
 
> By running, I assume actually read its output and fix it, so please
> share why each one of your patches has the same mistake reported by
> checkpatch?
> 
> > I will send the next version in the coming days after properly running the
> > checkpatch.pl script. Also, you mentioned some guidelines regarding GSoC
> > could you please let me know where I can read them?
> 
> I gave them to GSoC folks, so they should be in the GSoC DT
> guidelines/description. It was also posted for more than a year on
> @krzk@social.kernel.org and some days ago I updated it as well.
> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof

Hello Krzysztof,

      I hope you are doing good. I checked this binding it has 3 warnings
      one of them was  from the license text and the rest two are this" 
      WARNING: DT binding docs and includes should be a separate patch.
      See: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.rst". I fixed
      the license warning but not these two "DT binding doc warnings". I wonder
      what warning you want me to fix please let me know if i need to solve 
      this remaining two  warnings because they are in my every conversion patches.

Thanks
Shihao