Hi Rob, > > It seemed like the only possible way (that the tooling would validate) > > was to use: > > > > bindings: $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint64-matrix > > > > So I assumed I was defining a matrix of AxB elements, where A is the > > number of devices I want to "stack" and B is the number of values > > needed to describe its size, so 1. > > Yeah, that's well reasoned and I agree. The other array case is you > have N values where each value represents different data rather than > instances of the same data. The challenge is for the schema fixups to > recognize which is which without saying the schema must look like > exactly X or Y as there will be exceptions. Ok, now I see the problem on the tooling side and why you chose not to use this syntax. > > I realized that the following example, which I was expecting to work, > > was failing: > > > > bindings: $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint64-array > > dt: <property> = <uint64>, <uint64>; > > > > Indeed, as you propose, this actually works but describes two values > > (tied somehow) into a single element, which is not exactly what I > > wanted: > > > > bindings: $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint64-array > > dt: <property> = <uint64 uint64>; > > > > But more disturbing, all the following constructions worked, when using > > 32-bits values instead: > > > > bindings: $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32-array > > dt: <property> = <uint32 uint32>; > > > > bindings: $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32-array > > dt: <property> = <uint32>, <uint32>; > > > > bindings: $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32-matrix > > dt: <property> = <uint32 uint32>; > > > > bindings: $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32-matrix > > dt: <property> = <uint32>, <uint32>; > > That works because there's some really ugly code to transform the > schema into both forms. Good to know, this kind of puzzled me when I tried all the configurations :) > > I am fine waiting a bit if you think there is a need for some tooling > > update on your side. Otherwise, do you really think that this solution > > is the one we should really use? > > > > bindings: $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint64-array > > dt: <property> = <uint64 uint64>; > > Because of the /bits/ issue, yes. > > More importantly, the bracketing in dts files is not going to matter > soon (from a validation perspective). I'm working on moving validation > from using the yaml encoded DT (which depends on and preserves > brackets) to using dtbs. This will use the schemas to decode the > property values into the right format/type. Ok. Well, thanks for the feedback, with the latest dt-schema the tooling now validates the binding so I am going to send it as a v6 to collect your Ack. Thanks, Miquèl
