Hi Rob, On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 12:59:29PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 8:31 AM Andrew Lunn <andrew@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > +required: > > > + - compatible > > > + - reg > > > + - interrupts > > > + - clocks > > > + - phy > > > + - allwinner,sram > > > > Quoting ethernet.txt: > > > > - phy: the same as "phy-handle" property, not recommended for new bindings. > > > > - phy-handle: phandle, specifies a reference to a node representing a PHY > > device; this property is described in the Devicetree Specification and so > > preferred; > > > > Can this be expressed in Yaml? Accept phy, but give a warning. Accept > > phy-handle without a warning? Enforce that one or the other is > > present? > > The common schema could have 'phy: false'. This works as long as we've > updated (or plan to) all the dts files to use phy-handle. The issue is > how far back do you need kernels to work with newer dtbs. I guess another question being raised by this is how hard do we want to be a deprecating things, and should the DT validation be a tool to enforce that validation. For example, you've used in you GPIO meta-schema false for anything ending with -gpio, since it's deprecated. This means that we can't convert any binding using a deprecated property without introducing a build error in the schemas, which in turn means that you'll have a lot of friction to support schemas, since you would have to convert your driver to support the new way of doing things, before being able to have a schema for your binding. And then, we need to agree on how to express the deprecation. I guess we could allow the deprecated keyword that will be there in the draft-8, instead of ad-hoc solutions? Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
