On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 5:51 AM Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hello Rob, > > On Mon, 2021-03-08 at 10:39 -0700, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Mon, 08 Mar 2021 12:40:50 +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote: > > > Document DT bindings for ROHM BD71815. > > > > > > BD71815 is a single-chip power management IC mainly for battery- > > > powered > > > portable devices. The IC integrates 5 bucks, 7 LDOs, a boost driver > > > for > > > LED, a battery charger with a Coulomb counter, a real-time clock, a > > > 32kHz > > > clock and two general-purpose outputs although only one is > > > documented by > > > the data-sheet. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > .../bindings/mfd/rohm,bd71815-pmic.yaml | 201 > > > ++++++++++++++++++ > > > 1 file changed, 201 insertions(+) > > > create mode 100644 > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/rohm,bd71815-pmic.yaml > > > > > > > My bot found errors running 'make dt_binding_check' on your patch: > > I am sorry to bother but I've spent a while trying to reproduce this. > For some reason I can't trigger the error from > > 'make dt_binding_check' or > 'make dt_binding_check > DT_SCHEMA_FILES=Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/rohm,bd71815- > pmic.yaml' > > even after I ran > > 'pip3 install dtschema --upgrade --user'. > > I should also have yamllint installed. > > > > > yamllint warnings/errors: > > > > dtschema/dtc warnings/errors: > > Unknown file referenced: [Errno 2] No such file or directory: > > '/usr/local/lib/python3.8/dist- > > packages/dtschema/schemas/regulator/rohm,bd71815-regulator.yaml' > > This bothers me slightly. The patch 04/15 should bring-in the > rohm,bd71815-regulator.yaml. Does this error indicate that file is > missing or is my $ref somehow invalid? Then it's simply a false positive. I usually check these and try to only send the email if the dependency is not in the series so the dependency is clear. It's a balance of replying quickly and my time reviewing the errors. > *** opinion follows - not sure if it just me but... *** > > I know I should probably keep my mouth shut but... I am more and more > thinking that the yaml bindings are yet another 'excessive unit-test' > type solution. Tooling which should "force doing things correctly" is > eventually hindering development and causing the end result being sub- > optimal. It's about validating DTS files actually do what the bindings say. It's pretty clear that the free form text bindings left a lot of things ambiguous. How would you propose we can check every property in a DTS file has a definition (minimally of it's type)? Freeform text can simply never do that. > I mean that creating binding docs takes way too much time from someone > like me who is "yaml-illiterate". And when I eventually get yaml done - > the end result is far less descriptive for human eyes than the "good > old" free-text format would've been. I know one can add comments - but > I don't see much of them in the binding docs... Because people do the minimum? The only comments/description I object to are duplicating generic descriptions of common properties. There's certainly lots of things we could do. There are tools which generate pretty docs out of json-schema. Not sure how useful they would be OOTB. But I simply don't have the bandwidth to look into them. I can barely keep up with reviews... Rob
