Hallo again, On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 02:28:57PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 09:57:05AM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 02:39:31AM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/renesas,dw-hdmi.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/renesas,dw-hdmi.yaml > > > new file mode 100644 > > > index 000000000000..9a543740c81d > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/renesas,dw-hdmi.yaml > > > @@ -0,0 +1,142 @@ > > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) > > > +%YAML 1.2 > > > +--- > > > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/display/bridge/renesas,dw-hdmi.yaml# > > > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# > > > + > > > +title: Renesas R-Car DWC HDMI TX Encoder > > > + > > > +maintainers: > > > + - Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > + > > > +description: | > > > + The HDMI transmitter is a Synopsys DesignWare HDMI 1.4 TX controller IP > > > + with a companion PHY IP. > > > + > > > +allOf: > > > + - $ref: synopsys,dw-hdmi.yaml# > > > + > > > +properties: > > > + compatible: > > > + items: > > > + - enum: > > > + - renesas,r8a774a1-hdmi # for R8A774A1 (RZ/G2M) compatible HDMI TX > > > + - renesas,r8a774b1-hdmi # for R8A774B1 (RZ/G2N) compatible HDMI TX > > > + - renesas,r8a7795-hdmi # for R8A7795 (R-Car H3) compatible HDMI TX > > > + - renesas,r8a7796-hdmi # for R8A7796 (R-Car M3-W) compatible HDMI TX > > > + - renesas,r8a77965-hdmi # for R8A77965 (R-Car M3-N) compatible HDMI TX > > > + - const: renesas,rcar-gen3-hdmi > > > + > > > + reg: true > > > + > > > + reg-io-width: > > > + const: 1 > > > + > > > + clocks: > > > + minItems: 2 > > > + maxItems: 2 > > > > You don't need both, if one is missing the other will be filled by the > > dt-schema tools. In this particular case, I guess maxItems would make > > more sense. > > Fixed. > > > > + > > > + clock-names: > > > + items: > > > + - const: iahb > > > + - const: isfr > > > + > > > + interrupts: true > > > + > > > + ports: > > > + type: object > > > + description: | > > > + This device has three video ports. Their connections are modelled using the > > > + OF graph bindings specified in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/graph.txt. > > > + Each port shall have a single endpoint. > > > + > > > + properties: > > > + '#address-cells': > > > + const: 1 > > > + > > > + '#size-cells': > > > + const: 0 > > > + > > > + port@0: > > > + type: object > > > + description: Parallel RGB input port > > > + > > > + port@1: > > > + type: object > > > + description: HDMI output port > > > + > > > + port@2: > > > + type: object > > > + description: Sound input port > > > + > > > + required: > > > + - port@0 > > > + - port@1 > > > + - port@2 > > > + > > > + additionalProperties: false Would it also make sense to use unevaluatedProperties here, and drop #address-cells and #size-cells above as they're already evaluated in synopsys,dw-hdmi.yaml ? > > > + > > > + power-domains: > > > + maxItems: 1 > > > + > > > +required: > > > + - compatible > > > + - reg > > > + - clocks > > > + - clock-names > > > + - interrupts > > > + - ports > > > + > > > +additionalProperties: false > > > > In the case where you have some kind of generic schema and then a more > > specific one like you have here, unevaluatedProperties make more sense > > that additionalProperties. > > > > additionalProperties checks that there are no extra properties on the > > current schema, which is a problem here since you have to duplicate > > the entire list of properties found in the generic schema, while > > unevaluatedProperties checks that there are no extra properties in the > > entire set of all schemas that apply to this node. > > > > This way, you can just put what is different from the generic schema, > > and you don't have to keep it in sync. > > > > It's a feature that has been added in the spec of the schemas that > > went on right after the one we support in the tools, so for now the > > kernel meta-schemas only allows that property to be there (just like > > deprecated) but won't do anything. > > > > This should be fixed quite soon however, the library we depend on > > has started to work on that spec apparently. > > Should I postpone this series until support for unevaluatedProperties is > available, to be able to test this ? Also, to make sure I understand this correctly, does it mean I can drop "reg: true" and "interrupts: true" ? -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart
