On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 3:39 AM Vincent Whitchurch <vincent.whitchurch@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 07:57:55PM +0100, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Tue, 03 Nov 2020 11:00:20 +0100, Vincent Whitchurch wrote: > > > Add bindings for the Dialog Semiconductor DA9121 voltage regulator. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Vincent Whitchurch <vincent.whitchurch@xxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > .../bindings/regulator/dlg,da9121.yaml | 47 +++++++++++++++++++ > > > 1 file changed, 47 insertions(+) > > > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/dlg,da9121.yaml > > > > > > > My bot found errors running 'make dt_binding_check' on your patch: > > > > yamllint warnings/errors: > > > > dtschema/dtc warnings/errors: > > /builds/robherring/linux-dt-review/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/dlg,da9121.yaml: 'additionalProperties' is a required property > > /builds/robherring/linux-dt-review/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/dlg,da9121.yaml: ignoring, error in schema: > > warning: no schema found in file: ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/dlg,da9121.yaml > > > > See https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1392753 > > OK, thanks. I'll fix it by changing the unevaluatedProperties to an > additionalProperties (since the $ref has moved). > > I think I should also move the unevaluatedProperties to the buck1 level > instead of removing it completely, because I see a bunch of other > regulator bindings doing it, but the checks don't complain about that > being missing and I can't see that making any difference for the > validation. Because the meta-schema is not recursing down levels. It probably should, but that's another round of fixing all the current cases. And the top-level is more well defined as to what the structure is (IOW, we might not be able to define a rule that works everywhere). > For example, I was hoping that this: > > buck1: > description: > Initial data for the Buck1 regulator. > $ref: "regulator.yaml#" > type: object > unevaluatedProperties: false > > would complain about something like: > > buck1 { > not-a-real-property; > regulator-min-microvolt = <680000>; > regulator-max-microvolt = <820000>; > }; > > but it doesn't, so I don't quite understand what "unevaluatedProperties: > false" prevents. That's because it's currently a nop as the Python jsonschema package doesn't yet support 2019.09 version of jsonschema. If you aren't defining properties in addition to what's defined by a $ref, then use additionalProperties. Rob
