On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 03:06:03PM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 11/10/2013 04:00 AM, David Gibson wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 03:11:15PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> >> On 10/25/2013 05:29 PM, David Gibson wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:51:28PM +0100, Stephen Warren
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> From: Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>
> >>>> This is a very quick proof-of-concept re: how a DT schema
> >>>> checker might look if written in C, and integrated into dtc.
> >>
> >>>> diff --git a/schemas/schema.c b/schemas/schema.c
> >>
> >>>> +int schema_check_node(struct node *node)
> >> ...
> >>>> + if (!best_checker) { + printf("WARNING: no schema for
> >>>> node %s\n", node->fullpath); + return 0; + } + +
> >>>> printf("INFO: Node %s selected checker %s\n", node->fullpath,
> >>>> + best_checker->name); + + best_checker->checkfn(node);
> >>>
> >>> IMO, thinking in terms of "the" schema for a node is a mistake.
> >>> Instead, think in terms of a bunch of schemas, which "known"
> >>> what nodes they're relevant for. Often that will be determined
> >>> by compatible, but it could also be determined by other things
> >>> (presence of 'interrupts', parent node, explicitly implied by
> >>> another schema).
> >>
> >> I don't agree here.
> >>
> >> Each node represents a single specific type of object, and the
> >> representation uses a single specific overall schema.
> >>
> >> I'll admit that sometimes that schema is picked via the
> >> compatible value (most cases), and other times via the node
> >> name/path (e.g. /chosen, /memory).
> >>
> >> In particular, I don't think it's correct to say that e.g. both
> >> a "Tegra I2C controller" schema and an "interrupt" schema apply
> >> equally to a "Tegra I2C DT node".
> >
> > Why not? Both are mandatory.
>
> No. The interrupt schema isn't mandatory unless the Tegra I2C schema
> actively opts in to interrupt usage.
It really is. What I'm thinking of as the "interrupt schema"
specifies (in part) what the interrupts and related properties need to
look like if they exist. Those constraints must *always* be met,
regardless of whether the device schema additionally specifies the
number of interrupts or other constraints on interrupt format.
> >> Instead, I think that the "interrupt" schema only applies because
> >> the "Tegra I2C controller" schema happens to inherit from, or
> >> aggregate, the "interrupt" schema.
> >
> > So, explicit inheritence makes sense in many cases, but I don't
> > like seeing these universal rules as inheritence based. They
> > should be just that - universal - not opt-in for any particular
> > device binding.
>
> There isn't /an/ interrupt schema, there's a framework for interrupt
> schemas, where the specific "final" schema parameterizes the interrupt
> schema.
That all depends on how broad your notion of "schema" is.
And if you assume there's a "final" schema, then yes, you need to have
something defining the "final" schema, but that's a circular argument.
> It's impossible to fully evaluate whether an interrupts
> property conforms to the requirements unless you evaluate it in the
> context of a particular "final" schema.
So?
> Also, while it would be silly, I've never seen a rule specifically
> stated that common properties such as interrupts, reg, *-gpios,
> *-supply, pinctrl-* are absolutely reserved for their typical meaning,
> and that no binding can ever use them for other local purposes. It
> would make sense to explicitly state this though.
Yes it would. And as I said enforcing best practice, not just minimal
constraints makes sense for a schema checker.
> In practical terms, what this means is that, without any knowledge of
> the final binding, you can check that an interrupts property conforms
> to some general rules such as: it's a list of phandle + specifier, and
> the specifier length must match the interrupt parent, and the number
> of entries in interrupts an interrupt-names (if present) must match.
Yes. And..? Those things can still be checked by the device schema.
> However, you can't check any of the following without specific
> knowledge of the final binding:
>
> * Some bindings don't use interrupts, and hence
> interrupts/interrupt-names/interrupt-parent must /not/ be present in
> the node.
>
> * The specific (range of) number of entries that must be present in
> interrupts.
>
> * The specific set of entries that must exist in interrupt-names.
>
> * Any ordering requirements on the names in interrupt-names (say the
> binding was first defined to use interrupts by index, then later
> extended to look up additional entries by name via interrupt-names).
>
> I don't think it makes sense to check the base interrupts syntax
> alone, then those other rules later.
Why not?
> Instead, it makes sense to check
> all the interrupt-related rules at once, when you have enough
> knowledge of all the requirements.
Knowledge of the requirements is distributed. What's wrong with
checking those distributedly?
> Also, interrupts is an easy case because the property name is static.
> What about GPIOs or regulators. Do the base GPIO/regulator schema
> checkers search for all properties name *-gpios and *-supply and check
> those? How would one avoid collisions with other bindings that happen
> to use those same property names. Explicitly disallowing property name
> collisions for single property names like interrupts seems reasonable.
> Disallowing whole patterns of property names seems a bit harder, and
> less reasonable.
Sure. And for those properties, I'd agree with you. But there are
universal properties with universal constraints which can and should
be checked universally.
> >> I see two important results from this distinction:
> >>
> >> 1) We should only allow properties from the "interrupt" schema
> >> to exist within a node /if/ the top-level schema for the node
> >> actually does make use of the "interrupt" schema". This is
> >> important since it disallows e.g.:
> >>
> >> battery: smart-battery@b { compatible = "ti,bq20z45",
> >> "sbs,sbs-battery"; reg = <0xb>; interrupt-parent = <&gpio>;
> >> interrupts = <5 4>; };
> >>
> >> ... since the ti,bq20z45/sbs,sbs-battery don't actually have an
> >> interrupt output (assuming that the current binding doc for that
> >> compatible value accurately reflects the HW here anyway).
> >>
> >> If we allowed the "interrupt" schema to match the node simply
> >> because it saw an "interrupts" property there, that'd allow this
> >> unused property to exist in the DT, whereas we really do want to
> >> throw an error here, so the DT author is aware they made a
> >> mistake.
> >
> > So. To clarify my proposal of multiple applied schemas: in order
> > for the node to "pass" the checks, it must satisfy all constraints
> > of all applicable schemas - they don't override each other.
> > Furthermore, I'm not seeing any specific property as being owned by
> > a particular schema - multiple schemas applying to a node can place
> > overlapping constraints on the same property.
> >
> > So in this case, the interrupt schema describes what the
> > interrupts property needs to look like if it exists, but the device
> > schema says that there should be no interrupts. The only way to
> > satisfy both is to have no interrupts property, which is the right
> > answer.
>
> A big issue here is that if a node actually has an interrupts
> property, but the final schema says it shouldn't, the only way to
> check for that is for every schema that doesn't use interrupts to
> specifically check that no interrupts property is present. That
> explicit negative check has to be added for every common/generic/base
> schema. That doesn't seem scalable.
Um.. but your proposal is that every node which does use interrupts
(i.e. most devices) must explicitly say that interrupts are present.
How's that any more scalable?
> Going back to the GPIOs/regulators case, if a base GPIO/regulator
> schema has "blessed" property xxx-gpios as being OK, how does the
> final schema for a node undo that; must it explicitly enumerate every
> property that's present in the node and check it against the list of
> valid properties? I had envisaged something more like:
So as I've said, I think a scheme like yours makes more sense for
GPIOs, because of the more complex binding with multiple possible
properties.
> for each node:
> mark each property as invalid
> run all the schema checks
> (marking properties as valid as they're checked)
So.. here I think is the central point of our disagreement. You're
thinking of "valid" as an absolute, boolean attribute of a property.
I'm only thinking in terms of "valid w.r.t. schema X". Valid overall
just means valid w.r.t. every schema we know about - a set which will
grow over time.
> for all properties in node:
> if property is not marked valid, error out
Right, so my proposed flow is instead:
for each schema:
for each node:
if schema is applicable:
if schema fails:
print error for this node and schema
mark node as failing this schema
I think this approach allows a broader concept of schemas with more
flexible constraints e.g.:
* Node must have property-X OR property-Y
* If machine type X has node /foo/bar, it must also have node
/baz/qux
> If we run the various schema checkers at unrelated times, because
> they're separate checks, then we end up with either:
>
> for each node:
> run lots of sub-checkers
> mark each property as invalid
> run just the final schema checker
> (marking properties as valid as they're checked)
> for all properties in node:
> if property is not marked valid, error out
>
> I don't like the special case for the final checker there.
Yeah, no. I have no concept of "final" checker.
> If the schema checkers start to run on the same node in parallel, or
> in any undefined order, then things start getting worse.
Why? We'd need some order dependencies between schemas - the check
structure in dtc already supports this.
> > Actually, rather than a global "interrupts" schema here, more
> > useful would be a schema provided by the interrupt controller (and
> > so selected by the interrupt-parent property) which could validate
> > the internal format of the interrupt descriptors. But, again,
> > this doesn't prevent the device schema from validating the number
> > of interrupt descriptors for this device.
>
> interrupts is a bit special here because there's historically only
> been one parent. However, not all "base" schemas have this benefit,
> and even with interrupts, the interrupts-extend property breaks this
> assumption. This means that n different "parent" (provider/supplier)
> nodes end up defining the format of a single property in a consumer
> node, which feels a bit messy.
Only if you think of them as "defining" the property. I'm just
thinking of them as constraining the property.
> Having a single "check the entire
> interrupts property" function/schema, which goes and gets a little
> information from the provider/supplier (i.e. #interrupt-cells) feels a
> lot cleaner.
Not to me.
> >> 2) Some inheritance or aggregation of schemas is parameterized,
> >> e.g. on property name. For example, GPIO properties are named
> >> ${xxx}-gpios. However, I don't believe there's any hard rule that
> >> absolutely mandates that an /unrelated/ property cannot exist
> >> that matches the same naming rule. Admittedly, it would be
> >> suboptimal if such a conflicting property name were used, but if
> >> there's no hard rule against it, I don't think we should design
> >> our schema checker to assume that.
> >
> > The schema checker, no. The schemas themselves, maybe. At least
> > for really well established things, like interrupts, I think it's
> > reasonable that the schemas enforce best practice, not merely
> > minimal correctness.
>
> True. It sounds like we want a schema checker for the schemas, so that
> schema X can't (re-)define a property that schema Y defines the global
> meaning of!
Again, thinking of schemas as constraining, rather than defining,
makes things much more flexible. Schemas which heavily constrain, and
may also have semantic information attached - like nearly all device
schemas - can be thought of informally as "defining", but that doesn't
make a difference for the mechanics of the validation.
> >> If the GPIO schema checker simply searched for any properties
> >> named according to that pattern, it might end up attempting to
> >> check properties that weren't actually generic GPIO specifiers.
> >> Instead, I'd prefer the node's top-level schema to explicitly
> >> state which properties should be checked according to which
> >> inherited schema(s).
> >
> > So, in the case of GPIOs, I tend to agree. For the case of
> > interrupts, not so much.
>
> Surely we want to deal with everything in a uniform way though, rather
> than having some techniques that work for interrupts, and a different
> set of techniques that work for GPIOs.
Only if what we were checking itself was uniform, which it's not.
Different bindings impose different constraints for which different
techniques are appropriate.
> >> In particular, perhaps this conflict could occur in a slightly
> >> generic binding for a series of similar I2C GPIO expander chips,
> >> some of which have 4 GPIOs and others 8. Someone might choose a
> >> "count-gpios" or "number-of-gpios" property to represent that
> >> aspect of the HW.
> >>
> >> So overall, I believe it's actually very important to first
> >> determine *the* exact schema for a node, then apply that one
> >> top-level checker, with it then invoking various (potentially
> >> parameterized) sub-checkers for any inherited/aggregated
> >> schemas.
> >
> > So, I certainly think we want explicitly invoked subcheckers. But
> > I think we want multiple independently applied schemas for a single
> > node too.
>
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
Attachment:
pgpGBvyVDZ5G9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
