Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-117433-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 11:02:31 -0500
From: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
To: Javier Carrasco <javier.carrasco.cruz@gmail.com>
Cc: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
	Baruch Siach <baruch@tkos.co.il>, linux-rtc@vger.kernel.org,
	devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] dt-bindings: rtc: armada-380-rtc: convert to dtschema
Message-ID: <20240325160231.GB4035876-robh@kernel.org>
References: <20240323-rtc-yaml-v1-0-0c5d12b1b89d@gmail.com>
 <20240323-rtc-yaml-v1-1-0c5d12b1b89d@gmail.com>
 <20240323233742bfb9ba4a@mail.local>
 <6e68e0ca-2f3e-41a7-bb96-00fbdadc4436@gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <6e68e0ca-2f3e-41a7-bb96-00fbdadc4436@gmail.com>

On Sun, Mar 24, 2024 at 01:02:31AM +0100, Javier Carrasco wrote:
> On 3/24/24 00:37, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> > On 23/03/2024 23:46:13+0100, Javier Carrasco wrote:
> >> Convert existing binding to dtschema to support validation.
> >>
> >> +required:
> >> +  - compatible
> >> +  - reg
> >> +  - reg-names
> >> +  - interrupts
> >> +
> >> +additionalProperties: false
> > 
> > This is not correct because at least start-year is supported. Please
> > check for all your other submissions too.
> > 
> 
> allOf:
>   - $ref: rtc.yaml#
> 
> is missing, and then
> 
> unvealuatedProperties: false
> 
> to account for that.
> 
> "start-year" is read in the RTC base class, so I wonder why so many RTC
> bindings add a reference to rtc.yaml, but then use
> 
> additionalProperties: false

They may have pre-dated support for 'unevaluatedProperties', or you can 
list out which properties are used from a referenced schema which 
disallows unlisted properties. There's no hard rule here. Either way is 
fine.

Other than this and my 1 other comment, this series looks fine to me.

Rob