The dsa.yaml binding contains duplicated bindings for address and size
cells, as well as the reference to dsa-port.yaml. Instead of duplicating
this information, remove the reference to dsa-port.yaml and include the
full reference to dsa.yaml.
Signed-off-by: Colin Foster <[email protected]>
Suggested-by: Vladimir Oltean <[email protected]>
---
.../devicetree/bindings/net/dsa/qca8k.yaml | 14 +++-----------
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/dsa/qca8k.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/dsa/qca8k.yaml
index 978162df51f7..7884f68cab73 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/dsa/qca8k.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/dsa/qca8k.yaml
@@ -66,22 +66,16 @@ properties:
With the legacy mapping the reg corresponding to the internal
mdio is the switch reg with an offset of -1.
+$ref: "dsa.yaml#"
+
patternProperties:
"^(ethernet-)?ports$":
type: object
- properties:
- '#address-cells':
- const: 1
- '#size-cells':
- const: 0
-
patternProperties:
"^(ethernet-)?port@[0-6]$":
type: object
description: Ethernet switch ports
- $ref: dsa-port.yaml#
-
properties:
qca,sgmii-rxclk-falling-edge:
$ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/flag
@@ -104,8 +98,6 @@ patternProperties:
SGMII on the QCA8337, it is advised to set this unless a communication
issue is observed.
- unevaluatedProperties: false
-
oneOf:
- required:
- ports
@@ -116,7 +108,7 @@ required:
- compatible
- reg
-additionalProperties: true
+unevaluatedProperties: false
examples:
- |
--
2.25.1
On Mon, 24 Oct 2022 22:03:51 -0700, Colin Foster wrote:
> The dsa.yaml binding contains duplicated bindings for address and size
> cells, as well as the reference to dsa-port.yaml. Instead of duplicating
> this information, remove the reference to dsa-port.yaml and include the
> full reference to dsa.yaml.
>
> Signed-off-by: Colin Foster <[email protected]>
> Suggested-by: Vladimir Oltean <[email protected]>
> ---
> .../devicetree/bindings/net/dsa/qca8k.yaml | 14 +++-----------
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
My bot found errors running 'make DT_CHECKER_FLAGS=-m dt_binding_check'
on your patch (DT_CHECKER_FLAGS is new in v5.13):
yamllint warnings/errors:
dtschema/dtc warnings/errors:
/builds/robherring/dt-review-ci/linux/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/dsa/qca8k.example.dtb: switch@10: Unevaluated properties are not allowed ('#address-cells', '#size-cells' were unexpected)
From schema: /builds/robherring/dt-review-ci/linux/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/dsa/qca8k.yaml
/builds/robherring/dt-review-ci/linux/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/dsa/qca8k.example.dtb: switch@10: ports:port@6: Unevaluated properties are not allowed ('qca,sgmii-rxclk-falling-edge' was unexpected)
From schema: /builds/robherring/dt-review-ci/linux/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/dsa/qca8k.yaml
/builds/robherring/dt-review-ci/linux/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/dsa/qca8k.example.dtb: switch@10: Unevaluated properties are not allowed ('#address-cells', '#size-cells' were unexpected)
From schema: /builds/robherring/dt-review-ci/linux/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/dsa/qca8k.yaml
doc reference errors (make refcheckdocs):
See https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/
This check can fail if there are any dependencies. The base for a patch
series is generally the most recent rc1.
If you already ran 'make dt_binding_check' and didn't see the above
error(s), then make sure 'yamllint' is installed and dt-schema is up to
date:
pip3 install dtschema --upgrade
Please check and re-submit.
On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 10:03:51PM -0700, Colin Foster wrote:
> The dsa.yaml binding contains duplicated bindings for address and size
> cells, as well as the reference to dsa-port.yaml. Instead of duplicating
> this information, remove the reference to dsa-port.yaml and include the
> full reference to dsa.yaml.
I don't think this works without further restructuring. Essentially,
'unevaluatedProperties' on works on a single level. So every level has
to define all properties at that level either directly in
properties/patternProperties or within a $ref.
See how graph.yaml is structured and referenced for an example how this
has to work.
>
> Signed-off-by: Colin Foster <[email protected]>
> Suggested-by: Vladimir Oltean <[email protected]>
> ---
> .../devicetree/bindings/net/dsa/qca8k.yaml | 14 +++-----------
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/dsa/qca8k.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/dsa/qca8k.yaml
> index 978162df51f7..7884f68cab73 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/dsa/qca8k.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/dsa/qca8k.yaml
> @@ -66,22 +66,16 @@ properties:
> With the legacy mapping the reg corresponding to the internal
> mdio is the switch reg with an offset of -1.
>
> +$ref: "dsa.yaml#"
> +
> patternProperties:
> "^(ethernet-)?ports$":
> type: object
> - properties:
> - '#address-cells':
> - const: 1
> - '#size-cells':
> - const: 0
> -
> patternProperties:
> "^(ethernet-)?port@[0-6]$":
> type: object
> description: Ethernet switch ports
>
> - $ref: dsa-port.yaml#
> -
> properties:
> qca,sgmii-rxclk-falling-edge:
> $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/flag
> @@ -104,8 +98,6 @@ patternProperties:
> SGMII on the QCA8337, it is advised to set this unless a communication
> issue is observed.
>
> - unevaluatedProperties: false
> -
Dropping this means any undefined properties in port nodes won't be an
error. Once I fix all the issues related to these missing, there will be
a meta-schema checking for this (this could be one I fixed already).
> oneOf:
> - required:
> - ports
> @@ -116,7 +108,7 @@ required:
> - compatible
> - reg
>
> -additionalProperties: true
This should certainly be changed though. We should only have 'true' for
incomplete collections of properties. IOW, for common bindings.
> +unevaluatedProperties: false
>
> examples:
> - |
> --
> 2.25.1
>
>
Hi Rob,
On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 04:21:14PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 10:03:51PM -0700, Colin Foster wrote:
> > The dsa.yaml binding contains duplicated bindings for address and size
> > cells, as well as the reference to dsa-port.yaml. Instead of duplicating
> > this information, remove the reference to dsa-port.yaml and include the
> > full reference to dsa.yaml.
>
> I don't think this works without further restructuring. Essentially,
> 'unevaluatedProperties' on works on a single level. So every level has
> to define all properties at that level either directly in
> properties/patternProperties or within a $ref.
>
> See how graph.yaml is structured and referenced for an example how this
> has to work.
>
> > @@ -104,8 +98,6 @@ patternProperties:
> > SGMII on the QCA8337, it is advised to set this unless a communication
> > issue is observed.
> >
> > - unevaluatedProperties: false
> > -
>
> Dropping this means any undefined properties in port nodes won't be an
> error. Once I fix all the issues related to these missing, there will be
> a meta-schema checking for this (this could be one I fixed already).
I may be misreading, but here, "unevaluatedProperties: false" from dsa.yaml
(under patternProperties: "^(ethernet-)?port@[0-9]+$":) is on the same
level as the "unevaluatedProperties: false" that Colin is deleting.
In fact, I believe that it is precisely due to the "unevaluatedProperties: false"
from dsa.yaml that this is causing a failure now:
net/dsa/qca8k.example.dtb: switch@10: ports:port@6: Unevaluated properties are not allowed ('qca,sgmii-rxclk-falling-edge' was unexpected)
Could you please explain why is the 'qca,sgmii-rxclk-falling-edge'
property not evaluated from the perspective of dsa.yaml in the example?
It's a head scratcher to me.
May it have something to do with the fact that Colin's addition:
$ref: "dsa.yaml#"
is not expressed as:
allOf:
- $ref: "dsa.yaml#"
?
If yes, can you explain exactly what is the difference with respect to
unevaluatedProperties?
> > oneOf:
> > - required:
> > - ports
> > @@ -116,7 +108,7 @@ required:
> > - compatible
> > - reg
> >
> > -additionalProperties: true
>
> This should certainly be changed though. We should only have 'true' for
> incomplete collections of properties. IOW, for common bindings.
>
> > +unevaluatedProperties: false
Hi Rob,
On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 04:21:14PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 10:03:51PM -0700, Colin Foster wrote:
> > The dsa.yaml binding contains duplicated bindings for address and size
> > cells, as well as the reference to dsa-port.yaml. Instead of duplicating
> > this information, remove the reference to dsa-port.yaml and include the
> > full reference to dsa.yaml.
>
> I don't think this works without further restructuring. Essentially,
> 'unevaluatedProperties' on works on a single level. So every level has
> to define all properties at that level either directly in
> properties/patternProperties or within a $ref.
>
> See how graph.yaml is structured and referenced for an example how this
> has to work.
Thanks for pointing me to this. I didn't know about
https://github.com/devicetree-org/dt-schema until now, so I'll take a
look. I was primarily reading the schemas in net/dsa/* to try to get a
full understanding of the DT schema nuances, so these types of nudges
really help me.
And I see that Vladimir Oltean has responded to other parts of the
email, so I'll leave this as a simple "thanks" and keep that context
going forward.
Hi Rob and Vladimir,
On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 04:25:53AM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 04:21:14PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 10:03:51PM -0700, Colin Foster wrote:
> > > The dsa.yaml binding contains duplicated bindings for address and size
> > > cells, as well as the reference to dsa-port.yaml. Instead of duplicating
> > > this information, remove the reference to dsa-port.yaml and include the
> > > full reference to dsa.yaml.
> >
> > I don't think this works without further restructuring. Essentially,
> > 'unevaluatedProperties' on works on a single level. So every level has
> > to define all properties at that level either directly in
> > properties/patternProperties or within a $ref.
> >
> > See how graph.yaml is structured and referenced for an example how this
> > has to work.
> >
> > > @@ -104,8 +98,6 @@ patternProperties:
> > > SGMII on the QCA8337, it is advised to set this unless a communication
> > > issue is observed.
> > >
> > > - unevaluatedProperties: false
> > > -
> >
> > Dropping this means any undefined properties in port nodes won't be an
> > error. Once I fix all the issues related to these missing, there will be
> > a meta-schema checking for this (this could be one I fixed already).
>
> I may be misreading, but here, "unevaluatedProperties: false" from dsa.yaml
> (under patternProperties: "^(ethernet-)?port@[0-9]+$":) is on the same
> level as the "unevaluatedProperties: false" that Colin is deleting.
>
> In fact, I believe that it is precisely due to the "unevaluatedProperties: false"
> from dsa.yaml that this is causing a failure now:
>
> net/dsa/qca8k.example.dtb: switch@10: ports:port@6: Unevaluated properties are not allowed ('qca,sgmii-rxclk-falling-edge' was unexpected)
>
> Could you please explain why is the 'qca,sgmii-rxclk-falling-edge'
> property not evaluated from the perspective of dsa.yaml in the example?
> It's a head scratcher to me.
>
> May it have something to do with the fact that Colin's addition:
>
> $ref: "dsa.yaml#"
>
> is not expressed as:
>
> allOf:
> - $ref: "dsa.yaml#"
>
> ?
Looking into documentation (I promise I did some reading / research to
try to get a stronger understanding of the documentation yaml) I came
across the history of ethernet-controller.yaml which suggests to me that
the pattern:
allOf:
- $ref:
is frowned upon
commit 3d21a4609335: ("dt-bindings: Remove cases of 'allOf' containing a
'$ref'")
I do have a knack for misinterpreting data, but I read that as:
allOf:
- $ref:
shouldn't be used unless there's more than one list entry.
All that aside, I did upgrade from 2022.5 to 2022.9 just now and do see
these dtschema errors now. I'll be sure to use this before resubmitting.
>
> If yes, can you explain exactly what is the difference with respect to
> unevaluatedProperties?
>
> > > oneOf:
> > > - required:
> > > - ports
> > > @@ -116,7 +108,7 @@ required:
> > > - compatible
> > > - reg
> > >
> > > -additionalProperties: true
> >
> > This should certainly be changed though. We should only have 'true' for
> > incomplete collections of properties. IOW, for common bindings.
That makes a lot of sense - and helps me understand why I had so much
trouble understanding why it originally was "additionalProperties: true"
I'll obviously take another look at this. The nxp,sja1105.yaml seemed to
be most akin to what the qca8k.yaml needed to be - that is "take
dsa.yaml and add a couple extra properties to the ports nodes". But
there's always subleties.
> >
> > > +unevaluatedProperties: false
On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 04:25:53AM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 04:21:14PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 10:03:51PM -0700, Colin Foster wrote:
> > > The dsa.yaml binding contains duplicated bindings for address and size
> > > cells, as well as the reference to dsa-port.yaml. Instead of duplicating
> > > this information, remove the reference to dsa-port.yaml and include the
> > > full reference to dsa.yaml.
> >
> > I don't think this works without further restructuring. Essentially,
> > 'unevaluatedProperties' on works on a single level. So every level has
> > to define all properties at that level either directly in
> > properties/patternProperties or within a $ref.
> >
> > See how graph.yaml is structured and referenced for an example how this
> > has to work.
> >
> > > @@ -104,8 +98,6 @@ patternProperties:
> > > SGMII on the QCA8337, it is advised to set this unless a communication
> > > issue is observed.
> > >
> > > - unevaluatedProperties: false
> > > -
> >
> > Dropping this means any undefined properties in port nodes won't be an
> > error. Once I fix all the issues related to these missing, there will be
> > a meta-schema checking for this (this could be one I fixed already).
>
> I may be misreading, but here, "unevaluatedProperties: false" from dsa.yaml
> (under patternProperties: "^(ethernet-)?port@[0-9]+$":) is on the same
> level as the "unevaluatedProperties: false" that Colin is deleting.
>
> In fact, I believe that it is precisely due to the "unevaluatedProperties: false"
> from dsa.yaml that this is causing a failure now:
>
> net/dsa/qca8k.example.dtb: switch@10: ports:port@6: Unevaluated properties are not allowed ('qca,sgmii-rxclk-falling-edge' was unexpected)
>
> Could you please explain why is the 'qca,sgmii-rxclk-falling-edge'
> property not evaluated from the perspective of dsa.yaml in the example?
> It's a head scratcher to me.
A schema with unevaluatedProperties can "see" into a $ref, but the
ref'ed schema having unevaluatedProperties can't see back to the
referring schema for properties defined there.
So if a schema is referenced by other schemas which can define their own
additional properties, that schema cannot have 'unevaluatedProperties:
false'. If both schemas have 'unevaluatedProperties: false', then it's
just redundant. We may end up doing that just because it's not obvious
when we have both or not, and no unevaluatedProperties/
additionalProperties at all is a bigger issue. I'm working on a
meta-schema to check this.
> May it have something to do with the fact that Colin's addition:
>
> $ref: "dsa.yaml#"
>
> is not expressed as:
>
> allOf:
> - $ref: "dsa.yaml#"
>
> ?
No. Either way behaves the same. We generally only use 'allOf' when
there might be more than 1 entry. That is mostly just at the top-level.
Rob
On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 10:44:09AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 04:25:53AM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > Hi Rob,
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 04:21:14PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 10:03:51PM -0700, Colin Foster wrote:
> > > > The dsa.yaml binding contains duplicated bindings for address and size
> > > > cells, as well as the reference to dsa-port.yaml. Instead of duplicating
> > > > this information, remove the reference to dsa-port.yaml and include the
> > > > full reference to dsa.yaml.
> > >
> > > I don't think this works without further restructuring. Essentially,
> > > 'unevaluatedProperties' on works on a single level. So every level has
> > > to define all properties at that level either directly in
> > > properties/patternProperties or within a $ref.
> > >
> > > See how graph.yaml is structured and referenced for an example how this
> > > has to work.
> > >
> > > > @@ -104,8 +98,6 @@ patternProperties:
> > > > SGMII on the QCA8337, it is advised to set this unless a communication
> > > > issue is observed.
> > > >
> > > > - unevaluatedProperties: false
> > > > -
> > >
> > > Dropping this means any undefined properties in port nodes won't be an
> > > error. Once I fix all the issues related to these missing, there will be
> > > a meta-schema checking for this (this could be one I fixed already).
> >
> > I may be misreading, but here, "unevaluatedProperties: false" from dsa.yaml
> > (under patternProperties: "^(ethernet-)?port@[0-9]+$":) is on the same
> > level as the "unevaluatedProperties: false" that Colin is deleting.
> >
> > In fact, I believe that it is precisely due to the "unevaluatedProperties: false"
> > from dsa.yaml that this is causing a failure now:
> >
> > net/dsa/qca8k.example.dtb: switch@10: ports:port@6: Unevaluated properties are not allowed ('qca,sgmii-rxclk-falling-edge' was unexpected)
> >
> > Could you please explain why is the 'qca,sgmii-rxclk-falling-edge'
> > property not evaluated from the perspective of dsa.yaml in the example?
> > It's a head scratcher to me.
>
> A schema with unevaluatedProperties can "see" into a $ref, but the
> ref'ed schema having unevaluatedProperties can't see back to the
> referring schema for properties defined there.
>
> So if a schema is referenced by other schemas which can define their own
> additional properties, that schema cannot have 'unevaluatedProperties:
> false'. If both schemas have 'unevaluatedProperties: false', then it's
> just redundant. We may end up doing that just because it's not obvious
> when we have both or not, and no unevaluatedProperties/
> additionalProperties at all is a bigger issue. I'm working on a
> meta-schema to check this.
Thanks for this information. So if I'm understanding correctly:
- All DSA chips I'm modifying should reference dsa.yaml, as they
currently are.
- As such, these all should have unevaluatedProperties: true, so they
can see into dsa.yaml.
- dsa.yaml, and any schema that gets $ref:'d, can not have
unevaluatedProperties: false, unless the desire is to forbid any
other properties to be added.
I'll get another patch set out this week with all these changes, and
tested against the latest dt_bindings_check.
>
>
> > May it have something to do with the fact that Colin's addition:
> >
> > $ref: "dsa.yaml#"
> >
> > is not expressed as:
> >
> > allOf:
> > - $ref: "dsa.yaml#"
> >
> > ?
>
> No. Either way behaves the same. We generally only use 'allOf' when
> there might be more than 1 entry. That is mostly just at the top-level.
>
> Rob