Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-165258-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240430172520.535179-1-robh@kernel.org> <4f3ce3439e3d996471085e906902e508528308d3.camel@codeconstruct.com.au>
In-Reply-To: <4f3ce3439e3d996471085e906902e508528308d3.camel@codeconstruct.com.au>
From: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 1 May 2024 07:39:48 -0500
Message-ID: <CAL_JsqJmciSKp4H2KXcqv78Vga5gDi0JU_PY4Dth7LJrq6swMA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: mfd: aspeed: Drop 'oneOf' for pinctrl node
To: Andrew Jeffery <andrew@codeconstruct.com.au>
Cc: Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>, 
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>, Joel Stanley <joel@jms.id.au>, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-aspeed@lists.ozlabs.org, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 7:40=E2=80=AFPM Andrew Jeffery
<andrew@codeconstruct.com.au> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2024-04-30 at 12:25 -0500, Rob Herring (Arm) wrote:
> > The use of 'oneOf' to include 1 of 3 possible child node schemas result=
s
> > in error messages containing the actual error message(s) for the correc=
t
> > SoC buried in the tons of error messages from the 2 schemas that don't
> > apply. It also causes the pinctrl schema to be applied twice as it will
> > be applied when the compatible matches.
> >
> > All that's really needed in the parent schema is to ensure one of the
> > possible compatible strings is present in the pinctrl node so that its
> > schema will be applied separately.
>
> Thanks, I think it improves the readability of intent in the binding as
> well.
>
> To understand the impact better I grabbed the patch and diffed the
> output of `make CHECK_DTBS=3Dy aspeed/aspeed-ast2600-evb.dtb` before and
> after applying it, but there was no significant difference in output.
> Should that not demonstrate the errors being cleaned up? If not, what
> should?

Try it on one of the new boards posted in the last 1-2 days. It showed
up on my testing dtbs_check on patches. I didn't send a report because
there was so much noise in it.

Rob