On 19/09/2022 15:41, Sergio Paracuellos wrote:
> Hi Krzysztof,
>
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 2:48 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski
> <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On 19/09/2022 14:29, Sergio Paracuellos wrote:
>>>>
>>>> else mips-hpt-frequency: false
>>>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> +required:
>>>>> + - compatible
>>>>> +
>>>>> +additionalProperties: true
>>>>
>>>> and this is why you did not notice errors...
>>>
>>> Current arch/mips/boot/dts folder dts files are a mess for cpu nodes,
>>> so I set additionalProperties to true and only make required for
>>> 'compatible'. What should be the correct approach?
>>
>> This is okay, but it caused you did not notice errors...
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> +examples:
>>>>> + - |
>>>>> + cpus {
>>>>> + #size-cells = <0>;
>>>>> + #address-cells = <1>;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + cpu@0 {
>>>>> + device_type = "cpu";
>>>>> + compatible = "mips,mips1004Kc";
>>>>> + reg = <0>;
>>>>> + };
>>>>> +
>>>>> + cpu@1 {
>>>>> + device_type = "cpu";
>>>>> + compatible = "mips,mips1004Kc";
>>>>> + reg = <1>;
>>>>> + };
>>>>> + };
>>>>> +
>>>>> + - |
>>>>> + // Example 2 (BMIPS CPU)
>>>>> + cpus {
>>>>> + #address-cells = <1>;
>>>>> + #size-cells = <0>;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + mips-hpt-frequency = <150000000>;
>>>>
>>>> Does not match your bindings. Are you sure you tested the patches?
>>>
>>> Yes I did:
>>>
>>> $ make dt_binding_check
>>> DT_SCHEMA_FILES=Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mips/cpus.yaml
>>> LINT Documentation/devicetree/bindings
>>> CHKDT Documentation/devicetree/bindings/processed-schema.json
>>> SCHEMA Documentation/devicetree/bindings/processed-schema.json
>>> DTEX Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mips/cpus.example.dts
>>> DTC Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mips/cpus.example.dtb
>>> ' CHECK Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mips/cpus.example.dtb
>>>
>>> Can you please point me to a sample of how to make required in a
>>> parent node of cpu@X property 'mips-hpt-frequency' only for some
>>> compatible strings inside the node? What can this be properly
>>> expressed using schema??
>>> I was looking and testing different things for a while without success at all.
>>
>> You either define new schema for /cpus node (and match by name, define
>> children etc) or include it in schema for top-level properties. The
>> first is tricky, because the cpus node does not have compatible (like
>> nvidia,tegra194-ccplex.yaml).
>>
>> The second should work, but then it's a bit cluttered (top-level mixed
>> with cpus).
>
> I don't know if I am understanding you but maybe it is because my
> explanation about the requirement was not good at all. So let me
> explain a bit better.
>
> This is the normal way of definition of cpus for BMIPS:
I know, I checked the DTS.
>
> cpus {
> #address-cells = <1>;
> #size-cells = <0>;
>
> mips-hpt-frequency = <150000000>;
>
> cpu@0 {
> compatible = "brcm,bmips4350";
> device_type = "cpu";
> reg = <0>;
> };
>
> cpu@1 {
> compatible = "brcm,bmips4350";
> device_type = "cpu";
> reg = <1>;
> };
> };
>
> What I need to say in schema is that 'mips-hpt-frequency' must be only
> present if cpu@0 and cpu@1 nodes contain a compatible matching
> brcm,bmips*. In the same cpu@0 or cpu@1 node
> the following below will be sufficient. How can I express the same but
> referring that 'mips-hpt-frequency' must be on the parent node?
As I said you had two ways. In your current patch, I think you cannot.
> Because as it is below the validator complains because
> 'mips-hpt-frequency'
> is not present in cpu@0 and cpu@1 nodes:
>
> allOf:
> - if:
> properties:
> compatible:
> enum:
> - brcm,bmips3300
> - brcm,bmips4350
> - brcm,bmips4380
> - brcm,bmips5000
> - brcm,bmips5200
> then:
> required:
> - mips-hpt-frequency
> else:
> properties:
> mips-hpt-frequency: false
>
Best regards,
Krzysztof
