AM62 family of devices don't have a R5F cluster, instead
they have single core DM R5F.
Add new compatible string ti,am62-r5fss to support this scenario.
When this new compatible is used don't allow cluster-mode
property usage in device-tree as this implies that there
is no R5F cluster available and only single R5F core
is present.
Signed-off-by: Devarsh Thakkar <[email protected]>
---
V2: Avoid acronyms, use "Device Manager" instead of "DM"
---
.../bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml | 48 +++++++++++++------
1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml
index fb9605f0655b..91357635025a 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml
@@ -21,6 +21,9 @@ description: |
called "Single-CPU" mode, where only Core0 is used, but with ability to use
Core1's TCMs as well.
+ AM62 SoC family support a single R5F core only which runs Device Manager
+ firmware and can also be used as a remote processor with IPC communication.
+
Each Dual-Core R5F sub-system is represented as a single DTS node
representing the cluster, with a pair of child DT nodes representing
the individual R5F cores. Each node has a number of required or optional
@@ -28,6 +31,9 @@ description: |
the device management of the remote processor and to communicate with the
remote processor.
+ Since AM62 SoC family only support a single core, there is no cluster-mode
+ property setting required for it.
+
properties:
$nodename:
pattern: "^r5fss(@.*)?"
@@ -38,6 +44,7 @@ properties:
- ti,j721e-r5fss
- ti,j7200-r5fss
- ti,am64-r5fss
+ - ti,am62-r5fss
- ti,j721s2-r5fss
power-domains:
@@ -80,7 +87,8 @@ patternProperties:
node representing a TI instantiation of the Arm Cortex R5F core. There
are some specific integration differences for the IP like the usage of
a Region Address Translator (RAT) for translating the larger SoC bus
- addresses into a 32-bit address space for the processor.
+ addresses into a 32-bit address space for the processor. For AM62x,
+ should only define one R5F child node as it has only one core available.
Each R5F core has an associated 64 KB of Tightly-Coupled Memory (TCM)
internal memories split between two banks - TCMA and TCMB (further
@@ -104,6 +112,7 @@ patternProperties:
- ti,j721e-r5f
- ti,j7200-r5f
- ti,am64-r5f
+ - ti,am62-r5f
- ti,j721s2-r5f
reg:
@@ -207,20 +216,31 @@ patternProperties:
- firmware-name
unevaluatedProperties: false
+allOf:
+ - if:
+ properties:
+ compatible:
+ enum:
+ - ti,am64-r5fss
+ then:
+ properties:
+ ti,cluster-mode:
+ enum: [0, 2]
+
+ else:
+ properties:
+ ti,cluster-mode:
+ enum: [0, 1]
+
+ - if:
+ properties:
+ compatible:
+ enum:
+ - ti,am62-r5fss
+ then:
+ properties:
+ ti,cluster-mode: false
-if:
- properties:
- compatible:
- enum:
- - ti,am64-r5fss
-then:
- properties:
- ti,cluster-mode:
- enum: [0, 2]
-else:
- properties:
- ti,cluster-mode:
- enum: [0, 1]
required:
- compatible
--
2.17.1
On 30/11/2022 14:40, Devarsh Thakkar wrote:
> AM62 family of devices don't have a R5F cluster, instead
> they have single core DM R5F.
> Add new compatible string ti,am62-r5fss to support this scenario.
>
> When this new compatible is used don't allow cluster-mode
> property usage in device-tree as this implies that there
> is no R5F cluster available and only single R5F core
> is present.
>
> Signed-off-by: Devarsh Thakkar <[email protected]>
> ---
> V2: Avoid acronyms, use "Device Manager" instead of "DM"
Use subject prefixes matching the subsystem (git log --oneline -- ...).
> ---
> .../bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml | 48 +++++++++++++------
> 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml
> index fb9605f0655b..91357635025a 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml
> @@ -21,6 +21,9 @@ description: |
> called "Single-CPU" mode, where only Core0 is used, but with ability to use
> Core1's TCMs as well.
>
> + AM62 SoC family support a single R5F core only which runs Device Manager
> + firmware and can also be used as a remote processor with IPC communication.
> +
> Each Dual-Core R5F sub-system is represented as a single DTS node
> representing the cluster, with a pair of child DT nodes representing
> the individual R5F cores. Each node has a number of required or optional
> @@ -28,6 +31,9 @@ description: |
> the device management of the remote processor and to communicate with the
> remote processor.
>
> + Since AM62 SoC family only support a single core, there is no cluster-mode
> + property setting required for it.
> +
> properties:
> $nodename:
> pattern: "^r5fss(@.*)?"
> @@ -38,6 +44,7 @@ properties:
> - ti,j721e-r5fss
> - ti,j7200-r5fss
> - ti,am64-r5fss
> + - ti,am62-r5fss
Some order? Alphabetical, so before am64? Same in other places.
> - ti,j721s2-r5fss
>
> power-domains:
> @@ -80,7 +87,8 @@ patternProperties:
> node representing a TI instantiation of the Arm Cortex R5F core. There
> are some specific integration differences for the IP like the usage of
> a Region Address Translator (RAT) for translating the larger SoC bus
> - addresses into a 32-bit address space for the processor.
> + addresses into a 32-bit address space for the processor. For AM62x,
> + should only define one R5F child node as it has only one core available.
>
> Each R5F core has an associated 64 KB of Tightly-Coupled Memory (TCM)
> internal memories split between two banks - TCMA and TCMB (further
> @@ -104,6 +112,7 @@ patternProperties:
> - ti,j721e-r5f
> - ti,j7200-r5f
> - ti,am64-r5f
> + - ti,am62-r5f
> - ti,j721s2-r5f
>
> reg:
> @@ -207,20 +216,31 @@ patternProperties:
> - firmware-name
>
> unevaluatedProperties: false
Blank line.
> +allOf:
> + - if:
> + properties:
> + compatible:
> + enum:
> + - ti,am64-r5fss
> + then:
> + properties:
> + ti,cluster-mode:
> + enum: [0, 2]
> +
> + else:
> + properties:
> + ti,cluster-mode:
It's not really valid anymore for ti,am62-r5fss, so this cannot be
simple "else". Instead you need to list all compatibles.
> + enum: [0, 1]
> +
> + - if:
> + properties:
> + compatible:
> + enum:
> + - ti,am62-r5fss
> + then:
> + properties:
> + ti,cluster-mode: false
>
> -if:
> - properties:
> - compatible:
> - enum:
> - - ti,am64-r5fss
> -then:
> - properties:
> - ti,cluster-mode:
> - enum: [0, 2]
> -else:
> - properties:
> - ti,cluster-mode:
> - enum: [0, 1]
>
> required:
> - compatible
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Hi Krzysztof,
Thanks for the review. Please find my response inline.
On 30/11/22 20:33, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 30/11/2022 14:40, Devarsh Thakkar wrote:
>> AM62 family of devices don't have a R5F cluster, instead
>> they have single core DM R5F.
>> Add new compatible string ti,am62-r5fss to support this scenario.
>>
>> When this new compatible is used don't allow cluster-mode
>> property usage in device-tree as this implies that there
>> is no R5F cluster available and only single R5F core
>> is present.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Devarsh Thakkar <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> V2: Avoid acronyms, use "Device Manager" instead of "DM"
>
> Use subject prefixes matching the subsystem (git log --oneline -- ...).
Agreed, I will update the prefix as dt-bindings: remoteproc: k3-r5f: in V3.
>
>> ---
>> .../bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml | 48 +++++++++++++------
>> 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml
>> index fb9605f0655b..91357635025a 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml
>> @@ -21,6 +21,9 @@ description: |
>> called "Single-CPU" mode, where only Core0 is used, but with ability to use
>> Core1's TCMs as well.
>>
>> + AM62 SoC family support a single R5F core only which runs Device Manager
>> + firmware and can also be used as a remote processor with IPC communication.
>> +
>> Each Dual-Core R5F sub-system is represented as a single DTS node
>> representing the cluster, with a pair of child DT nodes representing
>> the individual R5F cores. Each node has a number of required or optional
>> @@ -28,6 +31,9 @@ description: |
>> the device management of the remote processor and to communicate with the
>> remote processor.
>>
>> + Since AM62 SoC family only support a single core, there is no cluster-mode
>> + property setting required for it.
>> +
>> properties:
>> $nodename:
>> pattern: "^r5fss(@.*)?"
>> @@ -38,6 +44,7 @@ properties:
>> - ti,j721e-r5fss
>> - ti,j7200-r5fss
>> - ti,am64-r5fss
>> + - ti,am62-r5fss
>
> Some order? Alphabetical, so before am64? Same in other places.
Agreed, I will update in V3 accordingly.
>
>
>> - ti,j721s2-r5fss
>>
>> power-domains:
>> @@ -80,7 +87,8 @@ patternProperties:
>> node representing a TI instantiation of the Arm Cortex R5F core. There
>> are some specific integration differences for the IP like the usage of
>> a Region Address Translator (RAT) for translating the larger SoC bus
>> - addresses into a 32-bit address space for the processor.
>> + addresses into a 32-bit address space for the processor. For AM62x,
>> + should only define one R5F child node as it has only one core available.
>>
>> Each R5F core has an associated 64 KB of Tightly-Coupled Memory (TCM)
>> internal memories split between two banks - TCMA and TCMB (further
>> @@ -104,6 +112,7 @@ patternProperties:
>> - ti,j721e-r5f
>> - ti,j7200-r5f
>> - ti,am64-r5f
>> + - ti,am62-r5f
>> - ti,j721s2-r5f
>>
>> reg:
>> @@ -207,20 +216,31 @@ patternProperties:
>> - firmware-name
>>
>> unevaluatedProperties: false
>
> Blank line.
Agreed, I will remove it in V3.
>
>> +allOf:
>> + - if:
>> + properties:
>> + compatible:
>> + enum:
>> + - ti,am64-r5fss
>> + then:
>> + properties:
>> + ti,cluster-mode:
>> + enum: [0, 2]
>> +
>> + else:
>> + properties:
>> + ti,cluster-mode:
>
> It's not really valid anymore for ti,am62-r5fss, so this cannot be
> simple "else". Instead you need to list all compatibles.
I agree that the else block is not valid for am62x, but my understanding is that since all the blocks under allOf are checked for validity,
I thought to add a separate if block only for am62x to set cluster-mode to false [1], which I believe would negate the effect of above else condition for am62x,
so that we don't have to list all compatibles under separate if blocks.
Just to verify this, I deliberately set cluster-mode=1 in am62x devicetree and then ran a dtbs-check and got below log :
"linux-next/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am625-sk.dtb: r5fss@78000000: ti,cluster-mode: False schema does not allow [[1]]"
and above warning log goes away when i remove the cluster-mode node in am62x devicetree.
But please do let me know if I am missing something here or there is a better/more proper way to do this.
Best Regards,
Devarsh
>
>> + enum: [0, 1]
>> +
[1]
>> + - if:
>> + properties:
>> + compatible:
>> + enum:
>> + - ti,am62-r5fss
>> + then:
>> + properties:
>> + ti,cluster-mode: false
>>
>> -if:
>> - properties:
>> - compatible:
>> - enum:
>> - - ti,am64-r5fss
>> -then:
>> - properties:
>> - ti,cluster-mode:
>> - enum: [0, 2]
>> -else:
>> - properties:
>> - ti,cluster-mode:
>> - enum: [0, 1]
>>
>> required:
>> - compatible
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>
On 21/12/2022 08:42, Devarsh Thakkar wrote:
> Hi Krzysztof,
>
> Thanks for the review. Please find my response inline.
>
> On 30/11/22 20:33, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 30/11/2022 14:40, Devarsh Thakkar wrote:
>>> AM62 family of devices don't have a R5F cluster, instead
>>> they have single core DM R5F.
>>> Add new compatible string ti,am62-r5fss to support this scenario.
>>>
>>> When this new compatible is used don't allow cluster-mode
>>> property usage in device-tree as this implies that there
>>> is no R5F cluster available and only single R5F core
>>> is present.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Devarsh Thakkar <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> V2: Avoid acronyms, use "Device Manager" instead of "DM"
>>
>> Use subject prefixes matching the subsystem (git log --oneline -- ...).
> Agreed, I will update the prefix as dt-bindings: remoteproc: k3-r5f: in V3.
>>
>>> ---
>>> .../bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml | 48 +++++++++++++------
>>> 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml
>>> index fb9605f0655b..91357635025a 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml
>>> @@ -21,6 +21,9 @@ description: |
>>> called "Single-CPU" mode, where only Core0 is used, but with ability to use
>>> Core1's TCMs as well.
>>>
>>> + AM62 SoC family support a single R5F core only which runs Device Manager
>>> + firmware and can also be used as a remote processor with IPC communication.
>>> +
>>> Each Dual-Core R5F sub-system is represented as a single DTS node
>>> representing the cluster, with a pair of child DT nodes representing
>>> the individual R5F cores. Each node has a number of required or optional
>>> @@ -28,6 +31,9 @@ description: |
>>> the device management of the remote processor and to communicate with the
>>> remote processor.
>>>
>>> + Since AM62 SoC family only support a single core, there is no cluster-mode
>>> + property setting required for it.
>>> +
>>> properties:
>>> $nodename:
>>> pattern: "^r5fss(@.*)?"
>>> @@ -38,6 +44,7 @@ properties:
>>> - ti,j721e-r5fss
>>> - ti,j7200-r5fss
>>> - ti,am64-r5fss
>>> + - ti,am62-r5fss
>>
>> Some order? Alphabetical, so before am64? Same in other places.
> Agreed, I will update in V3 accordingly.
>>
>>
>>> - ti,j721s2-r5fss
>>>
>>> power-domains:
>>> @@ -80,7 +87,8 @@ patternProperties:
>>> node representing a TI instantiation of the Arm Cortex R5F core. There
>>> are some specific integration differences for the IP like the usage of
>>> a Region Address Translator (RAT) for translating the larger SoC bus
>>> - addresses into a 32-bit address space for the processor.
>>> + addresses into a 32-bit address space for the processor. For AM62x,
>>> + should only define one R5F child node as it has only one core available.
>>>
>>> Each R5F core has an associated 64 KB of Tightly-Coupled Memory (TCM)
>>> internal memories split between two banks - TCMA and TCMB (further
>>> @@ -104,6 +112,7 @@ patternProperties:
>>> - ti,j721e-r5f
>>> - ti,j7200-r5f
>>> - ti,am64-r5f
>>> + - ti,am62-r5f
>>> - ti,j721s2-r5f
>>>
>>> reg:
>>> @@ -207,20 +216,31 @@ patternProperties:
>>> - firmware-name
>>>
>>> unevaluatedProperties: false
>>
>> Blank line.
> Agreed, I will remove it in V3.
>>
>>> +allOf:
>>> + - if:
>>> + properties:
>>> + compatible:
>>> + enum:
>>> + - ti,am64-r5fss
>>> + then:
>>> + properties:
>>> + ti,cluster-mode:
>>> + enum: [0, 2]
>>> +
>>> + else:
>>> + properties:
>>> + ti,cluster-mode:
>>
>> It's not really valid anymore for ti,am62-r5fss, so this cannot be
>> simple "else". Instead you need to list all compatibles.
> I agree that the else block is not valid for am62x, but my understanding is that since all the blocks under allOf are checked for validity,
> I thought to add a separate if block only for am62x to set cluster-mode to false [1], which I believe would negate the effect of above else condition for am62x,
> so that we don't have to list all compatibles under separate if blocks.
>
> Just to verify this, I deliberately set cluster-mode=1 in am62x devicetree and then ran a dtbs-check and got below log :
> "linux-next/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am625-sk.dtb: r5fss@78000000: ti,cluster-mode: False schema does not allow [[1]]"
>
> and above warning log goes away when i remove the cluster-mode node in am62x devicetree.
> But please do let me know if I am missing something here or there is a better/more proper way to do this.
This was three weeks ago, so hundreds of patches ago, I don't remember
anymore.
Just look at your patch - it is clearly incorrect. You said in the patch
that for compatibles other than ti,am64-r5fss cluster mode is BOTH [0,
1] AND false.
I gave you the way to fix it. Feel free to fix it other ways if it gives
correct result.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Hi Krzysztof,
On 21/12/22 15:06, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 21/12/2022 08:42, Devarsh Thakkar wrote:
>> Hi Krzysztof,
>>
>> Thanks for the review. Please find my response inline.
>>
>> On 30/11/22 20:33, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 30/11/2022 14:40, Devarsh Thakkar wrote:
>>>> AM62 family of devices don't have a R5F cluster, instead
>>>> they have single core DM R5F.
>>>> Add new compatible string ti,am62-r5fss to support this scenario.
>>>>
>>>> When this new compatible is used don't allow cluster-mode
>>>> property usage in device-tree as this implies that there
>>>> is no R5F cluster available and only single R5F core
>>>> is present.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Devarsh Thakkar <[email protected]>
>>>> ---
>>>> V2: Avoid acronyms, use "Device Manager" instead of "DM"
>>>
>>> Use subject prefixes matching the subsystem (git log --oneline -- ...).
>> Agreed, I will update the prefix as dt-bindings: remoteproc: k3-r5f: in V3.
>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> .../bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml | 48 +++++++++++++------
>>>> 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml
>>>> index fb9605f0655b..91357635025a 100644
>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml
>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml
>>>> @@ -21,6 +21,9 @@ description: |
>>>> called "Single-CPU" mode, where only Core0 is used, but with ability to use
>>>> Core1's TCMs as well.
>>>>
>>>> + AM62 SoC family support a single R5F core only which runs Device Manager
>>>> + firmware and can also be used as a remote processor with IPC communication.
>>>> +
>>>> Each Dual-Core R5F sub-system is represented as a single DTS node
>>>> representing the cluster, with a pair of child DT nodes representing
>>>> the individual R5F cores. Each node has a number of required or optional
>>>> @@ -28,6 +31,9 @@ description: |
>>>> the device management of the remote processor and to communicate with the
>>>> remote processor.
>>>>
>>>> + Since AM62 SoC family only support a single core, there is no cluster-mode
>>>> + property setting required for it.
>>>> +
>>>> properties:
>>>> $nodename:
>>>> pattern: "^r5fss(@.*)?"
>>>> @@ -38,6 +44,7 @@ properties:
>>>> - ti,j721e-r5fss
>>>> - ti,j7200-r5fss
>>>> - ti,am64-r5fss
>>>> + - ti,am62-r5fss
>>>
>>> Some order? Alphabetical, so before am64? Same in other places.
>> Agreed, I will update in V3 accordingly.
>>>
>>>
>>>> - ti,j721s2-r5fss
>>>>
>>>> power-domains:
>>>> @@ -80,7 +87,8 @@ patternProperties:
>>>> node representing a TI instantiation of the Arm Cortex R5F core. There
>>>> are some specific integration differences for the IP like the usage of
>>>> a Region Address Translator (RAT) for translating the larger SoC bus
>>>> - addresses into a 32-bit address space for the processor.
>>>> + addresses into a 32-bit address space for the processor. For AM62x,
>>>> + should only define one R5F child node as it has only one core available.
>>>>
>>>> Each R5F core has an associated 64 KB of Tightly-Coupled Memory (TCM)
>>>> internal memories split between two banks - TCMA and TCMB (further
>>>> @@ -104,6 +112,7 @@ patternProperties:
>>>> - ti,j721e-r5f
>>>> - ti,j7200-r5f
>>>> - ti,am64-r5f
>>>> + - ti,am62-r5f
>>>> - ti,j721s2-r5f
>>>>
>>>> reg:
>>>> @@ -207,20 +216,31 @@ patternProperties:
>>>> - firmware-name
>>>>
>>>> unevaluatedProperties: false
>>>
>>> Blank line.
>> Agreed, I will remove it in V3.
>>>
>>>> +allOf:
>>>> + - if:
>>>> + properties:
>>>> + compatible:
>>>> + enum:
>>>> + - ti,am64-r5fss
>>>> + then:
>>>> + properties:
>>>> + ti,cluster-mode:
>>>> + enum: [0, 2]
>>>> +
>>>> + else:
>>>> + properties:
>>>> + ti,cluster-mode:
>>>
>>> It's not really valid anymore for ti,am62-r5fss, so this cannot be
>>> simple "else". Instead you need to list all compatibles.
>> I agree that the else block is not valid for am62x, but my understanding is that since all the blocks under allOf are checked for validity,
>> I thought to add a separate if block only for am62x to set cluster-mode to false [1], which I believe would negate the effect of above else condition for am62x,
>> so that we don't have to list all compatibles under separate if blocks.
>>
>> Just to verify this, I deliberately set cluster-mode=1 in am62x devicetree and then ran a dtbs-check and got below log :
[2]
>> "linux-next/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am625-sk.dtb: r5fss@78000000: ti,cluster-mode: False schema does not allow [[1]]"
>>
>> and above warning log goes away when i remove the cluster-mode node in am62x devicetree.
>> But please do let me know if I am missing something here or there is a better/more proper way to do this.
>
> This was three weeks ago, so hundreds of patches ago, I don't remember
> anymore.
My apologies for the delay.
>
> Just look at your patch - it is clearly incorrect. You said in the patch
> that for compatibles other than ti,am64-r5fss cluster mode is BOTH [0,
> 1] AND false.
cluster-mode is BOTH [0,1] and false only in case of AM62x as per below snippet, but since it's under allOf the impact of latter will supersede, schema validation will fail even if cluster-mode set to 0 or 1 for am62x due to below snippet as shared in obesrvation log above [2].
" - if:
properties:
compatible:
enum:
- ti,am62-r5fss
then:
properties:
ti,cluster-mode: false"
Sorry for the back and forth, I just thought to describe more clearly what I was up-to as I thought above should be functionally fine and it also saves us from having separate if blocks for each compatible, but I am open to adding separate if blocks as you earlier suggested if that seems more cleaner solution.
Best Regards,
Devarsh
>
> I gave you the way to fix it. Feel free to fix it other ways if it gives
> correct result.
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>
On 21/12/2022 17:29, Devarsh Thakkar wrote:
>>
>> Just look at your patch - it is clearly incorrect. You said in the patch
>> that for compatibles other than ti,am64-r5fss cluster mode is BOTH [0,
>> 1] AND false.
>
> cluster-mode is BOTH [0,1] and false only in case of AM62x as per below snippet
Yes, for that variant you have conflicting approach.
, but since it's under allOf the impact of latter will supersede, schema
validation will fail even if cluster-mode set to 0 or 1 for am62x due to
below snippet as shared in obesrvation log above [2].
Yeah, but the code is confusing. So again - you are saying with allOf
that both conditions are applicable. Your intentions of superseding do
not matter here - you said that allOf conditions must be taken into
account. These conditions can be reversed any time, don't you think?
>
> " - if:
> properties:
> compatible:
> enum:
> - ti,am62-r5fss
> then:
> properties:
> ti,cluster-mode: false"
>
> Sorry for the back and forth, I just thought to describe more clearly what I was up-to as I thought above should be functionally fine and it also saves us from having separate if blocks for each compatible, but I am open to adding separate if blocks as you earlier suggested if that seems more cleaner solution.
You need to fix your email client to properly wrap messages.
Best regards,
Krzysztof