Re: [PATCH v4 6/7] dt-bindings: Add ANX6345 DP/eDP transmitter binding

From: Torsten Duwe <duwe@lst•de>
To: Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel•org>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm•com>,
	devicetree@vger•kernel.org, David Airlie <airlied@linux•ie>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation•org>,
	linux-kernel@vger•kernel.org, dri-devel@lists•freedesktop.org,
	Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@samsung•com>, Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie•org>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel•org>,
	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail•com>,
	Laurent Pinchart <Laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard•com>,
	Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll•ch>, Harald Geyer <harald@ccbib•org>,
	Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium•org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix•de>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists•infradead.org,
	Icenowy Zheng <icenowy@aosc•io>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 6/7] dt-bindings: Add ANX6345 DP/eDP transmitter binding
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2019 15:52:24 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191031145224.GA5973@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191031125100.qprbdaaysg3tmhif@hendrix>

On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 01:51:00PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 01:16:57PM +0100, Torsten Duwe wrote:
> > +
> > +  ports:
> > +    anyOf:
> > +      - port@0:
> > +        description: Video port for LVTTL input
> > +      - port@1:
> > +        description: Video port for eDP output (panel or connector).
> > +                     May be omitted if EDID works reliably.
> > +    required:
> > +      - port@0
> 
> Have you tried to validate those two ports in a DT?

Yes, it validates as expected, like I wrote. Various sources told me that
json-schema is not always straightforward so I assumed anyOf was OK.

> I'm not quite sure what you wanted to express with that anyOf, but if
> it was something like port@0 is mandatory, and port@1 is optional, it
> should be something like this:
> 
> properties:
> 
>   ...
> 
>   ports:
>     type: object
> 
>     properties:
>       port@0:
>         type: object
>         description: |
> 	  Video port for LVTTL input
> 
>       port@1:
>         type: object
>         description: |
> 	  Video port for eDP output (..)
> 
>     required:
>       - port@0
> 
> This way, you express that both port@0 and port@1 must by nodes, under
> a node called ports, and port@0 is mandatory.

That validates, too. Looks better, admittedly. I don't have a strong
opinion here. It's just that Rob wrote in
<CAL_JsqKAU3WG3L=KP8A8u4vW=q_BQWPN-m_c+ADOwTioJ2-cmg@mail•gmail.com>:

| For this case specifically, we do need to define a common graph
| schema, but haven't yet. You can assume we do and only really need to    
| capture what Maxime said above.
(your points back then were port@N descriptions and neccessity for port@0)

Are you sure that "object" is specific enough?

> You should even push this a bit further by adding
> additionalProperties: false to prevent a DT from having undocumented
> properties and children for the main node and ports node.

You mean like

| jsonschema.exceptions.SchemaError: Additional properties are not allowed ('unevaluatedProperties' was unexpected)
[...]
| On schema:
|    {'$id': 'http://devicetree.org/schemas/watchdog/allwinner,sun4i-a10-wdt.yaml#',
[...]
|      'unevaluatedProperties': False}

? ;-)

But yes, this patch series passes even with additionalProperties: false.

In which form would you like to receive the update?

	Torsten

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists•infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel