On Wed, Nov 3, 2021 at 6:45 AM Peter Rosin <peda@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 2021-11-02 23:27, Horatiu Vultur wrote: > > The 11/02/2021 13:37, Rob Herring wrote: > >> On Mon, Nov 01, 2021 at 10:32:01PM +0100, Horatiu Vultur wrote: > >>> The 11/01/2021 15:32, Peter Rosin wrote: > > *snip* > > >>> > >>> +required: > >>> + - compatible > >> > >> compatible should not be required here. > >> > >>> + - '#address-cells' > >>> + - '#size-cells' > >>> + > >>> examples: > >>> - | > >>> /* > >>> --- > >>> > >>> If I have this then my problem is with the required properties because then I > >>> start to get new warnings once I run: > >>> > >>> make ARCH=arm CROSS_COMPILE=arm-linux- dtbs_check DT_SCHEMA_FILES=Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-mux.yaml > >>> > >>> For example, one of new the warnings is this: > >>> > >>> /home/hvultur/linux/arch/arm/boot/dts/am335x-icev2.dt.yaml: mux-mii-hog: 'compatible' is a required property > >>> From schema: /home/hvultur/linux/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-mux.yaml > >>> /home/hvultur/linux/arch/arm/boot/dts/am335x-icev2.dt.yaml: mux-mii-hog: '#address-cells' is a required property > >>> From schema: /home/hvultur/linux/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-mux.yaml > >>> /home/hvultur/linux/arch/arm/boot/dts/am335x-icev2.dt.yaml: mux-mii-hog: '#size-cells' is a required property > >>> From schema: /home/hvultur/linux/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-mux.yaml There's actually a ton of 'mux' nodes that should be causing warnings too. > >> This is because of the $nodename pattern being pretty lax and matches > >> on mux-mii-hog by mistake. We have 2 options. Change the nodename > >> pattern to '^(i2c-?)?mux(@.*)?$' or add 'select: false'. The former > >> would still match on 'mux' or 'mux@.*' which might still have problems. > >> For the latter, we just need to make sure all the i2c-mux schemas have a > >> $ref to this schema. Also, with that change we'd stop checking 'i2c-mux' > >> nodes that don't yet have a specific schema. That said, I do lean toward > >> the latter option. > > > > From what I can see there are only two i2c-mux schemas and both of them > > have a $ref to this schema [1][2] > > > > [1] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-mux-gpmux.yaml#L33 > > [2] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-mux-pca954x.yaml#L16 > > I'm a relative yaml bindings newbie, but I assume adding "select: false" will > have the side effect of not enforcing this i2c-mux schema on i2c-muxes that > have not yet been converted to yaml? E.g. i2c-mux-gpio.txt, i2c-mux-pinctrl.txt > etc etc. But there are not too many of those. Is it a prerequisite to update > those bindings to yaml before doing "select: false"? No. We may be losing some checks temporarily, but we've got plenty of other warnings to keep busy. And most cases in tree seem to be pca954x anyways. > Looking further I think > there's a total of about 15-20 drivers doing i2c-muxing (or arbing/gating), > and some of those exist outside the "i2c umbrella". > > I wonder if e.g. this one [1] should really reference i2c-controller.yaml as > it is currently doing, or if i2c-mux.yaml is correct? > > [1] Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/supply/sbs,sbs-manager.yaml > > Maybe i2c-mux.yaml didn't work in that case because the node names were > "wrong" and did not match the pattern and then someone stuck > i2c-controller.yaml in there simply because that was close enough, and > also happened to work? While the device does have muxing capability, it does much more and the use is rather specific. So I think it is fine. Rob
