A test with the command below gives this error:
arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399-evb.dt.yaml: /: compatible:
['rockchip,rk3399-evb', 'rockchip,rk3399', 'google,rk3399evb-rev2']
is not valid under any of the given schemas
Fix this error by adding 'google,rk3399evb-rev2' to the compatible
property in rockchip.yaml
make ARCH=arm64 dtbs_check
DT_SCHEMA_FILES=Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml
Signed-off-by: Johan Jonker <[email protected]>
---
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml
index d303790f5..6c6e8273e 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml
@@ -509,6 +509,7 @@ properties:
items:
- const: rockchip,rk3399-evb
- const: rockchip,rk3399
+ - const: google,rk3399evb-rev2
- description: Rockchip RK3399 Sapphire standalone
items:
--
2.11.0
On 28/02/2020 6:14 am, Johan Jonker wrote:
> A test with the command below gives this error:
>
> arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399-evb.dt.yaml: /: compatible:
> ['rockchip,rk3399-evb', 'rockchip,rk3399', 'google,rk3399evb-rev2']
> is not valid under any of the given schemas
>
> Fix this error by adding 'google,rk3399evb-rev2' to the compatible
> property in rockchip.yaml
>
> make ARCH=arm64 dtbs_check
> DT_SCHEMA_FILES=Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml
>
> Signed-off-by: Johan Jonker <[email protected]>
> ---
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml
> index d303790f5..6c6e8273e 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml
> @@ -509,6 +509,7 @@ properties:
> items:
> - const: rockchip,rk3399-evb
> - const: rockchip,rk3399
> + - const: google,rk3399evb-rev2
This looks wrong - the board can't reasonably be a *more* general match
than the SoC. If this is supposed to represent a specific variant of the
basic EVB design then it should come before "rockchip,rk3399-evb" (and
possibly be optional if other variants also exist).
Robin.
>
> - description: Rockchip RK3399 Sapphire standalone
> items:
>
Hi Robin,
When I look at the review process of rk3399-evb.dts
it is mentioned here:
https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/672327/
>> + model = "Rockchip RK3399 Evaluation Board";
>> + compatible = "rockchip,rk3399-evb", "rockchip,rk3399",
>> + "google,rk3399evb-rev2", google,rk3399evb-rev1",
>> + "google,rk3399evb-rev0" ;
>
> can you check against which compatibles that coreboot really matches?
>
> As we said that the evb changed between rev1 and rev2, I would expect the
> compatible to be something like
>
> compatible = "rockchip,rk3399-evb", "google,rk3399evb-rev2",
> "rockchip,rk3399";
>
> leaving out the rev1 and rev0
The consensus in version 4 ends in what is shown in the dts file, so I
changed it in rockchip.yaml. Things from the past maybe can better be
explained by Heiko. Please advise if this patch needs to change and in
what file.
Kind regards,
Johan
On 2/28/20 1:42 PM, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 28/02/2020 6:14 am, Johan Jonker wrote:
>> A test with the command below gives this error:
>>
>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399-evb.dt.yaml: /: compatible:
>> ['rockchip,rk3399-evb', 'rockchip,rk3399', 'google,rk3399evb-rev2']
>> is not valid under any of the given schemas
>>
>> Fix this error by adding 'google,rk3399evb-rev2' to the compatible
>> property in rockchip.yaml
>>
>> make ARCH=arm64 dtbs_check
>> DT_SCHEMA_FILES=Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Johan Jonker <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml | 1 +
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml
>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml
>> index d303790f5..6c6e8273e 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml
>> @@ -509,6 +509,7 @@ properties:
>> items:
>> - const: rockchip,rk3399-evb
>> - const: rockchip,rk3399
>> + - const: google,rk3399evb-rev2
>
> This looks wrong - the board can't reasonably be a *more* general match
> than the SoC. If this is supposed to represent a specific variant of the
> basic EVB design then it should come before "rockchip,rk3399-evb" (and
> possibly be optional if other variants also exist).
>
> Robin.
>
>> - description: Rockchip RK3399 Sapphire standalone
>> items:
>>
Hi Johan,
Am Freitag, 28. Februar 2020, 14:28:36 CET schrieb Johan Jonker:
> Hi Robin,
>
> When I look at the review process of rk3399-evb.dts
> it is mentioned here:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/672327/
>
> >> + model = "Rockchip RK3399 Evaluation Board";
> >> + compatible = "rockchip,rk3399-evb", "rockchip,rk3399",
> >> + "google,rk3399evb-rev2", google,rk3399evb-rev1",
> >> + "google,rk3399evb-rev0" ;
> >
> > can you check against which compatibles that coreboot really matches?
> >
> > As we said that the evb changed between rev1 and rev2, I would expect the
> > compatible to be something like
> >
> > compatible = "rockchip,rk3399-evb", "google,rk3399evb-rev2",
> > "rockchip,rk3399";
> >
> > leaving out the rev1 and rev0
>
> The consensus in version 4 ends in what is shown in the dts file, so I
> changed it in rockchip.yaml. Things from the past maybe can better be
> explained by Heiko. Please advise if this patch needs to change and in
> what file.
Just get rid of the "google,rk3399evb-rev2" from the .dts please :-) .
(1) "rockchip,rk3399-evb", "rockchip,rk3399", "google,rk3399evb-rev2";
is just wrong for the reasons Robin explained, I guess that slipped
through review at the time.
(2) "google,rk3399evb-rev2" was a specific variant for Google I'm pretty
sure they'll have scraped all these boards directly after they had the
first actual rk3399-gru development devices
So I'm pretty sure the only rk3399-evbs in existence are the general ones.
Heiko